Cheri DiNovo should apologize

Well said. (Are you disappointed to see the first response to your thread had no substantive contribution?)

Sure is different story in the msp.

Foreign Affiars is under federal jurisdiction so why are the the Ontario NDP getting involved at all in such a controversial issue.

And secondly it's time to bite the bullet on the single public schooling issue which is what the Ontario NDP should be sinking its teeth into.

Maybe the problem is with the leader, and maybe the answer to the article question below is who cares?

What is it going to take for the Ontario NDP to get its act together, act in harmony, and stop giving the other parties targets to aim at.

Who leads Ontario's NDP?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/who-leads-ontarios-nd...

Unionist, just when I think you've exhausted your overweening gall, you go and outdo yourself.

Am I the only one who finds Unionist to be just a little ill positioned to extort an apology from DiNovo, indeed given the way he shows contempt for fellow rabblers, from anyone?? This from the person who has been the most antagonizing and abusive on this board towards DiNovo, who has smeared her with complete impunity? Who has attempted to out her [identity] in this forum?

It is very telling that in his enumeration of the reasons DiNovo ought to prostrate herself at the altar of rabid Leftists, Unionist completely elides the one thing for which DiNovo may in fact owe an apology: inappropriately insulting someone (who incidentally thinks its perfectly appropriate to go to her Wall and taunt and provoke her (remind me next time I'm at your house to shit all over it and demand impunity). Now I don't know how we are to conceive of questions of etiquette and respect on FB, of issues of propriety, of moderating comments, is one's wall like one's personal journal and thoughts or is there the same expectation of balanced and fair debate as there is at a conference or an all candidates meeting. I think there is a rich discussion to be had around these issues. Which incidentally is one of my issues against the use of the word apartheid in IAW. If you want to use it in a context of one sided propaganda, I say go for it, in fact would encourage it. But attempting to use the term apartheid and conference/debate simultaneously is a preemptive defilement of everything I take reasonable debate to stand for.

But by far the best part of Unionist insolent drivel is "I can't imagine which progressive person of good faith would not forgive her." Awe, such a soft tone from Unionist. Do you think she'll be swayed by you? This again, from the one person least qualified to talk about good faith. Of course, this in a forum where such good faith is generally in very short supply when it comes to anyone disagreeing with the fundamentalist politics around here.

However, I refuse to believe that there is near unanimity here. I am shocked by how few rabblers have stood up against the bullying, the loose tongues, the personal attacks, the intellectual dishonesty, the deliberate misconstruing of DiNovo's position. 

To the moderators: Yes I know, I'm banned. Whatever! I'd be happy to post your "defence" of banning me on my blog piece, since you insinuate that I mischievously disallowed it in the comments section.  I'd be happy to even create a new blog entry for it. Oh yeah, when you're making friends with Kinsella you might want to question what kind of gong show you're running here. I will be posting a defence of DiNovo in the near future for anyone who wishes to think fairly and respectfully around the issue. But you know I'll pop up here once in while. It is in my nature.

Unionist is le...wrote: "attempting to use the term apartheid and conference/debate simultaneously is a preemptive defilement of everything I take reasonable debate to stand for."

See, this was the problem with the anti-South African Apartheid movement. It should never have used words like "apartheid" and "institutionalized racism" as they shut down reasonable debate with the government of South Africa and its supporters.  Remember, etiquette trumps core ethical positions every time. If that means that the grotesque suffering of an oppressed population is silenced, minimized, or otherwise whitewashed, so be it: their feelings aren't terribly important in the grand scheme of things. It's the feelings and precious self-image of the powerful that must be sheltered at all costs.

Meanwhile, this is how Israel's powerbrokers view reasonable debate:

"The campaign against Israeli dissidents has taken the form of venomous denunciations of activists and jurists, including Justice Goldstone. It includes a bill before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, which will make it possible to imprison the leaders of Israeli human rights groups if they fail to comply with crippling new registration conditions. Human rights activists from outside Israel who work in the Palestinian territories are being rounded up and deported. The government is refusing to issue work visas to employees of 150 NGOs operating in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders). The new tourist visas effectively bar these employees from Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. Professor Naomi Chazan, the Israeli head of the NIF, which has donors in the United States, is being publicly vilified by ultranationalist groups such as Im Tirzu.  Foreign donors to the NIF, as well as other human rights groups, are being pressured by Israeli officials to halt contributions. Billboards have sprouted up around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with a grotesque caricature of Chazan, who has been branded by groups such as Im Tirzu as an agent for Hamas and Iran, with a horn growing from her forehead. "Naomi-Goldstone-Chazan" the caption on the billboard reads. Im Tirzu, the front organization behind many of the attacks, includes among its financial backers the John Hagee Ministries and the New York Central Fund, which also support extremist settler organizations...

"The Knesset bill, if passed, will force human rights groups to register as political bodies and turn over identification numbers and addresses of all members to the government. These groups will lose their tax-exempt status. Most governmental organizations, such as the European Union, which is a large donor to Israeli human rights organizations, cannot legally pay taxes to another government, and the new law will effectively end European Union and other outside funding. The groups will be mandated to provide the government with the records of all foreign donations and account for how these donations were spent. Any public statement, event or speech, even if it lasts half a minute, by these groups must include a declaration that they are being supported and funded by a foreign power. Those who fail to follow these guidelines, including local volunteers, can face a year in jail."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/israel_crackdown_puts_liberal_jews_o...

I disagreed with synthome's banning at the time, and I still do, although obviously I understood the rationale. He should be allowed to post here, as long as he follows babble policy and desists from his personal attacks. I believe that if we reinstate his privileges and invite him to just post on questions of substance, he will respond in kind. He obviously has something to offer, but he can't spit it out while he's busy attacking me, babble, and "rabid Leftists" as he puts it.

I guess what I'm proposing is that we give him the opportunity to correct his ways. He was banned without a warning, and he obviously yearns to be here, as he keeps coming back, like Banquo's or Hamlet's ghosts. Let's see if he can post without attacking other babblers. If he can't, then the mods will do what they must.

Sorry for the drift. I'm still hoping DiNovo's allies and supporters will ask her to retract and apologize. There is a wholesale attack aimed at suppressing criticism of Israel - Skinny Dipper has cited more evidence of this draconian campaign, with offerings now from the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star. DiNovo, and by implication the ONDP, must distance themselves from this fascist manoeuvre to suppress democratic debate and dissent.

I am thinking we should change it from Israel Aparthied Week to 'Israel not being very nice' week.
Unless of course, Canadian Israeli supporters feel that is too strong, in which case we could change it to 'Israel not being as nice as they could' week

Synthome has a blog? Where?

Why, the altar of rabid Leftists, of course. A simple Google search should do.

Oh, never mind.

That some are questioning CDN's self proclaimed "queerness" here is  absolutely hyprocritical.

That several men were telling her what to do on her own FB wall, was so full of fucking male privilege as to be again hyprocritical. Those actions are every bit as wrong as CDN denying freedom of speech against activists for Palestine.

What even gives them the right to attack her on her FB wall over this?

They should have started a FB account about it as opposed to infiltrating HER space, and attacking HER on HER space.

If any person went to my FB wall, and started attacking me, I sure as fuck would be defriending them too. It is NOT their space it is MY SPACE.

The lack of respect and personal privilege that was  exhibited  by those that did so, is a very negative blight on the face of left , and supposedly progressive, politics in Canada.

Their actions are no better the CDN, and perhaps worse.

Stargazer: It would take 100 unionists to equal one of me.  Thanks for coming out though. I think unionist can not only defend himself, but more ably than by calling me "creep". BTW, you say troll like it's a bad thing.

Michael Nenonen: I guess you missed the part where I said as propaganda (which I don't see as necessarily a bad thing), as a descriptor for the "movement" and indeed of the political reality, I in fact do not have an issue with the term apartheid. But I do have an issue with presenting IAW as somehow a university conference, or a discussion or debate taking place across university campuses. In that context precisely, I find it exclusionary, hateful, and anti-thetical to dialogue. I would never go so far as to stop the use of such language, but I would hope that, precisely in the name of academic integrity, such preemptive foreclosure of open debate would be roundly condemned. As far as more appropriate names. How about glorifying and upholding the Palestinian people, not starting from a stance of hate and accusation, and having Palestinian Liberation Week? An honest and open dialogue could even ensue, but even if didn't, tactically, it would be a brilliant strategy for fundamentalist Leftists. You could spew the same one-sided hate-filled bile at Israel, elevate all Palestinians to abject victimhood and utter sublime blamelessness and fly completely under the radar.

Freedom 55: I was referring to outing people's identity here on rabble, although you may want to read DiNovo's book on queerying Christianity, before you

Unionist: For what it's worth, I think you are being sincere and I appreciate it. But having been around here for years now, mostly silently, I really don't want to be a part of such essentialist, pure, non nuanced politics, where disagreement with the apparatchik is met with a complete lack of generosity and attacked disproportionately with derision, contempt, and often hate. Your response to DiNovo was symptomatic of a growing part of Leftist politics that I want no part in; a politics of intolerance, of self-righteousness, and irreverence, where the enemy of my enemy often becomes my friend and all is polarized. Sorry, regardless of whether or not DiNovo ought to apologize and exactly for what, I simply contend that you're about the last person here to be in a position to extract such an apology, given the utter lack of respect (personal, intellectual, or otherwise) you've shown for her. Peace.

I'm a little disappointed that Dr. Dawg, who applauded synthome's rant about "deranged socialists" and "rabid Leftists", doesn't come here and defend his viewpoint where we can actually engage him in discussion:

He seems to have outed me though:

Damn - how the hell did he know!?

Mind you, it appears he's just trying to drive traffic to his own blog:

I think I'll just stick with babble, EM, B&R - you know, the homes of the rabid where no one individual using 20-syllable words "owns" the board.

Yeah..but on your earlier point(s), she uses her FB page for political purposes.  It isn't a private space if it's used as such, and is a fair game public space.

SJ:

Just because she uses her page for political purposes, does not make it open. It makes it more open, but not open enough for someone to be allowed to tell her what to do, at any given immediate moment.

And I do not call what happened to her "fair", I call it stalking and bullying, and I say that even though I disagree completely with her actions in the Ontario legistlature.

So likewise, her constituency office phone number and email address, her official mailing address, those too should be placed out of bounds for people who wish to tell her what to do and where to go as an elected representative? What makes FB such a special no go place when it is used as a political communications platform? She and her staff have the right to hang up on irate callers, toss hate mail in the trash, delete inbound emails that are unpleasant, why must a political FB page be cordoned off as sacred ground?

skdadl: I harbour no illusions, there will never be another Derrida, and as my profile suggests I use the name only to mourn and mark his death and to keep his name alive. I agree that Derrida was a very gentle and generous man, especially in person, but there was a serious streak of Nietzschean intemperance and reading otherwise in Derrida's work. For instance, in Gammatology, as a very young man and a "foreigner" he audaciously takes on French intellectual royalty like Rousseau, Levi Strauss. I think he was bumptious- nice word btw. But yes, for the record, I am no Derrida, although I strive to dwell in the spirit of differance, nuance, generosity, and forgiveness that he so meticulously opened up.

Hee. Thanks for the PR, skdadl. I saw this lovely individual in one of his previous (four? five?) permutations when he was going on about Lacan and saying that babble was the reason "we needed Derrida now more than ever." I thought about intervening, but figured that was about as impossible as a persimmon interfering with a carrot. There's just nothing to grab on to. That's not to say a (real, competent) psychoanalyst sitting down with babble wouldn't be fruitful, just that it ain't happening here. Just sit back and enjoy your symptom, I guess.

As for that other guy, well, I've read the introduction to the Derrida chapter in the Norton Anthology of Literary Criticism, which makes me overqualified for this discussion. I'm a gone have to (always already) recuse myself.

Unfortunately, I think it's a legitimate issue to discuss.

I don't raise this lightly, which is why I decided to ask around to see if anyone knew she self-identified as queer prior to this weekend. I wanted to avoid jumping to any conclusions. I still am unsure what to think, but nothing I've heard or read so far suggests that my concerns are off-base.

Under most circumstances I wouldn't even think of questioning how someone self-identifies with respect to their sexual orientation. And in many situations I'd say it shouldn't even matter. However, I think it's an issue here, frankly, because of how bizarre her handling of the controversy has become.

In defending and justifying her position, CDN has already erased the identities of the many women and people of colour who have challenged her statements - first, by deleting their comments on FB; and secondly, by smearing her critics as 'privileged white men'. All this while claiming to speak for the oppressed women in Iran and the Middle East. Stooping to that low, is enough for me to question whether she is also trying to claim someone else's identity and oppression in order to shield herself from her critics. After a gay man said that she doesn't speak for him, she suddenly claims to be speaking "as a queer woman".

Again, I don't know what to make of all this. But prior to that thread, everyone I've spoken to only knew her as a queer ally, not as a self-identified queer woman.

I've known activists who have, at times, claimed the identity of an oppressed group, thinking that this was acceptable because they're an 'ally', or because they thought they were being helpful. This is not cool. It's messed-up. And it's not being an ally.

This isn't, as someone stated, about anyone's 'predilections', nor is it about whether someone is 'queer enough'.

I'm hoping that she was being sincere. It would put the issue to rest for me if she has made such a statement elsewhere... apart from a heated exchange on FB.

I wish I knew more about Derrida and this discussion has motivated me to do just that. I do recall that Derrida was an early critic of the Vietnam war and one of the few to meet with Palestinian leadership when it wasn't exactly fashionable. I also have a vague recollection that Chomsky had some problems with Derrida but I am not entirely sure what they were. Either way I intend to learn more.

Na, if a "unknown" person can come here and tell us all that they are woman, who has absolutely no intention of getting rid of their penis, and that all the rest of the women of the world and those here have to accept they are a woman, then a known a public figure, who states they are queer, means that it is hyprocritical that someone challenges her queerness, here.

No one can challenge said anonymous persons claim they are a woman, who does not want to get rid of their penis, and no one should be challenging CDN's claim by the same token. Whether it is true or not, is beside the point, it is about "true left" continuity and tolerating of hypocrisy here.

After all, if CDN is going to be called upon her lack of purity here, then  everyone else should be measuring up to their own levels of purity testing, eh!

Yes indeed remind, I found it waaayyyyy over the top for DiNovo to falsely accuse FB posters of sexism/racism when she had earlier defriended and deleted posts by women of colour who disagreed with her.

What did they do now?!?

Oh believe me, if it wasn't "male privilege" it would be "classicism".

It is not a pretty sight.

Me too. Creep seems such an appropriate characterization for someone who would sign up to babble just to expose themselves as ... well, a creep.

And DiNovo should apologize.

*clap*clap*clap*

Granted Michelle, I did not know that is how politicians used FB, as I do not do FB, really at all, but really it  does not matter, it is still "her" facebook page.

it is not her constituents page, nor the taxpayers page, it is hers.

Moreso hers, in fact, than rabble bloggers, who have public profiles they want to promote here, who remove people's responses to their ramblings, errrr bloggings. But yet rabble still allows them to remove crap they feel crosses the line for what they want to see in response to their blog postings.

... for the last time, I do not  like what CDN stated in parliament in respect to IAW, nor do I agree with her words on FB, however, I even more do not agree with people en masse attacking her, nor indeed  bringing it here from everywhere.

Not enough people watching FB, or following the numerous blog postings about Cheri, well just  bring it on over here, so more people can pile on too, eh!

What a good way to indicate what is going to happen to left cred politicians, or indeed any left  public figure, who do not tow the line with what  the so called left pureists say and want to hear. As to me, there is absolutely no doubt what is being indicated by games like this, and others that I have viewed over the recent past  here, which is the use of rabble/babble as a silencing and destroying mechanism.

...as it has, and will be continued to be used to destroy anyone's leftist credentials and self esteem, if they are not towing the line that the 'left' "elite" want towed.

Good progressive stalking and gang intimidation, say nothing of  marginalization of voice...makes one truly impressed with the humanity and social justice of it all. And I am not puttng myself above others here, as I have been just as guilty, however, this whole thing has really gone beyond the bounds of acceptability of taking exception to politicians commentary. 

And I stand by the fact this would have never happened to a male politician of any ilk.

And so what if she was acting out of control, it is NOT "andrews" place to put her in her place, nor anyone elses, especially not after they were the ones pushing all the buttons, thereby ensuring things would spiral out. Fool that she was, she took their bait, and yes that was a mistake of hers, but it in no way lets them off for their behaviour either.

Heads up "step away from the computer"  is not an amusing statement,  it is a belittling passive aggressive, and definitely not a friends, statement, when made in such a very public manner.

Make up your mind. Is it her public page or her private one? And how does one say "um I think you are losing it and causing yourself more damage then good"? In any arena?  Here we often say step away from the computer or they need a break. In real life you might pull the person aside and tell them. On FB you post a comment. Its ANYONES business to intervene on behalf of a friend, especially if the behavior is self destructive. And it was prob Andrews instinctive action to post a reply like that, jsut like here some of us have reflex actiosn to post "fuck you" or "your wrong and a racist/sexist/classist/etc person"

We have all done that (I do try to stop that these days but often fail)

Unionist is not le...wrote: "Michael Nenonen: I guess you missed the part where I said as propaganda (which I don't see as necessarily a bad thing), as a descriptor for the "movement" and indeed of the political reality, I in fact do not have an issue with the term apartheid. But I do have an issue with presenting IAW as somehow a university conference, or a discussion or debate taking place across university campuses. In that context precisely, I find it exclusionary, hateful, and anti-thetical to dialogue. I would never go so far as to stop the use of such language, but I would hope that, precisely in the name of academic integrity, such preemptive foreclosure of open debate would be roundly condemned. As far as more appropriate names. How about glorifying and upholding the Palestinian people, not starting from a stance of hate and accusation, and having Palestinian Liberation Week? An honest and open dialogue could even ensue, but even if didn't, tactically, it would be a brilliant strategy for fundamentalist Leftists. You could spew the same one-sided hate-filled bile at Israel, elevate all Palestinians to abject victimhood and utter sublime blamelessness and fly completely under the radar."

Uh-huh...so, again, I guess you would have been opposed to the anti-South African Apartheid movement because it spewed the same one-sided hate-filled bile at the White South African regime, and elevated all Black South Africans to abject victimhood and utter sublime blamelessness.

And I guess the attempts by, for example, Jewish opponents of Israeli Apartheid who have invited people on the other side of the fence to publicly debate them were really attempts to shut down public debate through offers that were, by definition, exclusionary, hateful, and anti-thetical to dialogue.

Christ, man how exactly in your world should people go about exposing and opposing significant geopolitical evils?

Or is Israeli Apartheid the evil that dares not speak its name?

On another subject: It takes a fair amount of contempt for an on-line community to repeatedly hack your way back into a discussion board that you have been explicitly banned from participating in. It's quite the precedent, too. I suppose you're okay with every other person who has been banned for violating the terms of use doing the same. After all, if you don't respect the authority of the moderators, why should they? Why shouldn't they simply barge back in here to post whatever homophobic, racist, sexist, or imperialistic garbage they want to spew? You're setting an example that, if followed, would completely undermine the integrity of this space.

Probably what it takes is waaaaay too much free time on his hands.

Anyway, a whole lot of traffic on this subject by people who don't live in Ontario, have never met Cheri, and likely never will.

I'm wondering how to approach it next time I run into her.

Right after they did it in Ontario, it gave some Tory MLA the bright idea to do the same thing in Manitoba.  We've had the leader of the opposition and an NDP cabinet minister call for IAW to be banned here.  This vote started a trend, so it does affect me in Manitoba.  But, I guess solidarity also stops at the Manitoba-Ontario border, so I'm sorry for being frustrated that DiNovo joined in with Shurman to attack the people I was working with on this.

Tell it to DiNovo - by her actions, she proved she isn't my ally.  So I'm treating her as such.

Consider asking her to retract. It's the right thing to do and it would help restore her credibility among some people who have no reason to be her enemy.

ETA: And by the way, Sineed, while it's not my place to ask her to apologize (as I mentioned from the outset), I have every right to condemn the shameful words she pronounced in public, as well as to condemn the ignorant nonsense she spouted about the Jewish religion and culture. You might mention that at least one Jew said she should familiarize herself with the liturgy if she feels so compelled to talk about it in the legislature.

Good, FM. Very good.

Don't get me wrong, unionist; I had no problems with what you said.  I just wouldn't have minded hearing the impressions of more folks who live in the riding (there are a few of us here eg Le T.  And I think Parkdale High Park, though I don't think he's posted in a while).

I don't think I can speak for the Palestinians - there are many who live in this riding btw.  She does need to reconnect with the people she's alienated, and I'm not sure how she'll do that (apologizing is a good start).

I'm still waiting for Bob Rae to apologize for his term as Premier.

Are we attacking the victim here?

The thing is, we have no evidence she had received death threats. She never did give specifics and instead appeared to blame the death threats on anyone who disagreed with her.

I'm sure her politics in other areas are stellar, but she threw us under the bus with the stunt she pulled on FB (and her siding with the Con against us). If you can't accept criticism don't say such divisive things. Pretty simple. Her FB page is for her to connect with her supporters. Democracy includes hearing dissenting opinions. Cheri wanted none of that and took to deleting all dissenters and defriending people whom had always been her allies.

She has only herself to blame. Until she takes action on the so-called death threats, then I might believe they actually happened. As of now, we have zero proof except her word, and as seen by her facebook meltdown and her strawman replies to legit criticism, I won't be holding my breath.

It has been reported Cheri has received death threats. Now she is being attacked for not reporting the death threats. How do we know the death threats have not been reported to police. Sure sounds like attacking the victim. Perhaps someone else should apologise.

I don't agree remind, which doesn't mean I don't believe women who say they have been raped or beaten.

Her FB rage was because she didn't want to be told she was wrong. She freaked out.

I'm sorry you guys feel like we are piling on her but really I don't care. She is a public figure who said and did some pretty stupid things. Israel right or wrong is not a good stance to take.

Why did she make the death threats public, NR, but won't say whether she has called the cops? Give me a credible hypothesis. Exactly what makes you think there is a victim in this case? This isn't about blaming a rape victim for "inviting" or consenting. This is about waiting for credible (i.e. non-political) evidence that anything even happened.

Respectfully, I do not fully agree, I think her FB  outburst, was based upon several things, one of which was death threats against her.

and yes, i have also had death threats made against me, directed by someone(s) who was allegdedly on the "left".

hell, i have even had death threats made against me by right wing whackers who did not like something i posted in a forum and they literally went to extended lengths to find out my phone number in order to do so.

 i fully realized that people, no matter their political orientation, have the capability to utter death threats when they believe that their "cause" is being threatened by another. And this is not just a cause, it is pertaining to people's lives. Palestinians are dying and will continue to die, unless Israel is stopped. Thus it is no stretch for me to believe that someone with emotionally vested interests, might go over board with their anger comments at the first blush.

It does not mean they will act them out, anymore than someone will  who says in anger; "god i could kill, insert name, for doing that".

But of course like in the case of the dude last week in Edmonton, it could also mean they will/could at least try.

thus, i would never ever determine someone was lying when they state such, and especially not when they have the creds that CDN does.

Don't you think your putting words in her mouth? Unless I'm mistaken, Cheri DiNovo has never said "Israel right or wrong". Believe it or not - it is possible to oppose the use of the word "apartheid" to describe Israel and also be highly critical or various particular policies of the Israeli government. You are trying to project on to anyone who isn't 100% in favour of IAW that they are some flag waving Likudnik - which is clearly not the case.

BTW: I'm sure it really galls some people here - but in the mainstream media Cheri DiNovo is actually getting good press and is being depicted as a heroine who is standing up for her beliefs despite death threats etc...I'm not saying that she deserves the good press - but that is the way she is coming across and for every person who reads babble, there a million who read the Star or the Sun.

Stock, of course the MSP is giving her good reviews. They are wimps, they report mainstream crap. What else do you expect? An honest debate about Israel in the MSM? Not going to happen.

I happened to hear Frankie D from B'nai Brith on a radio talk show yesterday. Aside from citing the Jewish people's biblical claim to Israel, attacking Obama's health care program, suggesting that Obama will turn out to be the worst president in US history and asserting that he's known from the start that Obama was not a friend of Israel, he vilified Horwath (and the ONDP by association) for her letter and extolled Cheri's position. 

Would he have done so if Cheri had said something like, "I support the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions" but I don't think that the most effective way to do that is by labeling Israel as an apartheid state". It is BDS that Israel fears - they've already been called everything in the book. 

I also heard John Tory discussing the Biden/settlement issue last night. Tory was critical of Israel for that and brayed about how no one has called him an anti-Semite. He repeated that several times implying that it is not common practice, especially when "friends" criticize. 

Unionist, you are acting as thought DiNovo herself called a press conference, and was peppered with questions about alerting the police, which she refused to answer.

Try reading the article above - it was the NDP leader who was interviewed by the Sun and who indicated that the party had not called the police.  No one has even asked DiNovo the question you say she refuses to answer.

So unless you are willing to put forward some evidence to back up your claim that DiNovo is refusing to answer the question - back off.  You are blaming the victim.

Thanks for offering at least one credible answer to the question: "Why did she make these alleged death threats public?"

I noticed a small article the other day in "Metro", the free paper distributed every morning  by the Toronto Star. It stated that the death threats were on facebook (which implies they may have been PMs). 

Nice try unionist, but I'm not engaging in the question of DiNovo apologizing for her speech.  You can try to deflect attention from what I said, but I'm not biting.

I don't care what she said in her speech, death threats to politicians are not acceptable. Even if she herself made death threats, two wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps she made the threats public (from what I can see it was the NDP leader, not her that did so) to make people understand what public figures are sometimes subjected to.

I have a low tolerance for people who call politicians at home to offer opinions.  That's probably because I'm married to an MLA, and while most of her calls are people who need some assistance and are easily re-directed to her office, I'd hate to have my kids answer the phone when some right wing lunatic wants to chew out my wife for being a feminist in Alberta.

So yes, I am asking you to back off.  If you don't like the content of DiNovo's speech, make arguments against it until you are blue in the face.  But you are twisting what's in the media about the death threats into something it's not.  You've accused her of refusing to answer questions without a thread of evidence she has ever had the question put to her.  You are accusing her of lying with no evidence at all to back yourself up.

thread drift/I received a death threat on a picket line. Actually the police told me that a gentleman, who held me responsible for his car not getting through the picket line, wanted to talk to me. He threatened to have me killed. He weighed over 300 lbs, I weighed 135 lbs. I reported the threat immediately to the police. They questioned the gentleman, he denied the threat, end of investigation/end thread drift

I believe she's telling the truth about getting threatening phone calls, Bookish.  I just don't think they were from the people who were trying to politely engage her on facebook.

And that's what she was wildly suggesting on Saturday night in her incoherent ranting and freaking out on Facebook.  When she wasn't calling people fascists and idiots.  Meanwhile, the Toronto Star characterized what people were writing to her on Facebook as "the nastiest" things MPP's were receiving.

So, just to be clear, polite disagreement from supporters Cheri has "friended", including Muslim women and men that she defriended for disagreeing with her on the issue, is painted as "the nastiest" even in comparison to this:

Quote:

Shurman, who is Jewish, has received email messages calling him everything from "the minister of kikes" to a "Nazi."

Interesting that you should bring this up, Unionist. Because all these people have said far worse than Cheri, and don't have 2+ threads demanding that they should apologize and ridiculing their claims of having recieved threats.

You are switching goalposts, Unionist. We were talking about abuse, now you are talking about whether she should apologize or not. Or perhaps you are saying that abusing DiNovo to get her to apologize is acceptable because she is progressive?

I think gita's stand is principled and clear: Cheri, you were wrong. If you want us as allies, apologize. If not, the hell with you. At any rate, now we will ensure that the ONDP as a group, can move forward in the right direction, with or without you. But as for badgering and hectoring a woman? No thanks, it's unimportant, and it's beneath us.

continued over here