Cheri DiNovo should apologize

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Cheri DiNovo should apologize
Unionist

Cheri DiNovo should apologize... to her party's leader, for misrepresenting the ONDP's position on legitimate debate and dissent... to Jews and non-Jews of conscience, who exercise their democratic right to organize Israeli Apartheid Week... and, if she likes to her many friends, who urged her to recant and reconsider, and were met with deletion, de-friending, and derision.

If she were to do so, sincerely and openly, I can't imagine which progressive person of good faith would not forgive her, turn the page, and move forward together.

If she does not, then we are entitled to wonder, why not?

 

Lord Palmerston

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

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

WRT  skdadl's question on the House of Saud at the very end of the closed thread, in the movie "Looking For Bin Laden" (or some such title) there's at least one vignette that shows the absolute control the Sauds exercise over that country - an American filmmaker is in a Saudi school, and trying to ask questions to two young students - while their teacher and some gov't flunkies are in the room. It's clear the answers have been rehearsed ahead of time, and when the filmmaker goes 'off script', they refuse to answer any further questions. There's also commentary on how the House of Saud is kept in power with American military firepower but that's for another thread.

NorthReport

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...

NorthReport

Developers balk at affordable-unit idea

 

 

Quote:
NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park) plans to reintroduce a private member's bill in May on inclusionary zoning that died when Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the Legislature. Her bill would change the provincial Planning Act to permit municipalities to require developers to set aside a certain percentage of new housing units for affordable housing.

"We have to step in and come up with some novel ideas," said DiNovo. "We have to look at the greater good." She argued such a policy would not cost any tax dollars, and that developers would be able to sell larger units, aimed at families, that are typically harder to sell.

DiNovo added it would be no different than the funding developers currently give to communities, called Section 37 money, for common-good projects such as playgrounds or parks. The amounts contributed by developers are generally dependent on the negotiating skills of individual councillors.

http://www.thestar.com/yourcitymycity/article/777568--developers-balk-at...

Stargazer

I'll take 100 unionists over DiNovo or you any day. Creep.

 

And thanks for admitting you'll be one of those desperate trolls who just sign up with a new name. How classy. Is this what we can expect from DiNovo supporters?

Stargazer

Thanks Michael.

Unionist

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 - [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/federal-israeli-apartheid-week... Dipper has cited more evidence[/url] 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.

 

Kaspar Hauser

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...

bcruth

Unionist le ... banned or not, this is a well articulated comment. Oddly, the language quite closely echoes the language Cheri Dinovo used on her facebook wall. Coincidence? 

I disagree with you absolutely on the notion of apartheid: how can you have an honest discussion about Israel's treatment of Palestinians if you don't use language that accurately describes the situation on the ground there? For instance, you may call "The Fabric of Life" the roads that serve to divide the West Bank, that keep Palestinians from moving freely between their towns, to their employment and families - all in order to give Israelis' living in illegal settlements a fast way to and from Israel. I call it an apartheid practice because it reflects the practices employed in South African apartheid.  It is just one of the hundreds of practices of apartheid policy employed by Israel. (BTW, Israel calls their policy "Separation" policy. Apartheid means separation in Afrikaans.) Lets call a spade a spade. Would you feel better if Israeli Apartheid Week were renamed "Week Against Israeli's Racist Policy of Separation".

On Cheri DiNovo, I think apologies are needed all around.  Given her progressive track record, and the critical analysis she has shared on all sorts of controversial social issues, her position on this issue took me by surprise, as it no doubt did many others. So, she shared her opinion. Others shared theirs. Passions rose. People were angry. She got angry. Others got angry. Words were exchanged. ETC ETC  She messed up in handling her facebook page (maybe she should close her 'friend' page to her friends and create a fan page for the rest of us??).

 

KeyStone

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

Freedom 55

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:

This from the person who has been the most antagonizing and abusive on this board towards DiNovo,[...]who has attempted to out her in this forum?

I don't see how this is possible, given this post from yesterday:

Unionist wrote:

I didn't realize that she is a queer woman and former street kid.

 

She outed herself on FB, and I posed a question about whether anyone had previously known that she self-identifies as queer.

Unionist is le ...

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.

rasmus

Synthome has a blog? Where?

pogge
N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

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

 

Oh, never mind.

Caissa

Thread drift/ Is this person welcome to stay or banned again other this new incarnation/ end thread drift

remind remind's picture

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.

Slumberjack

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:
But by far the best part of Unionist insolent drivel is

The best part?  He's been around here for awhile...you have no idea.

Unionist is le ...

Stargazer: It would take 100 unionists to equal one of me. Laughing 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 Foot in mouth

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.

Unionist

N.Beltov wrote:

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

I'm a little disappointed that Dr. Dawg, who [url=https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34047704&postID=641414159425286... synthome's rant[/url] about "deranged socialists" and "rabid Leftists", doesn't come here and defend his viewpoint where we can actually engage him in discussion:

Dr. Dawg wrote:
I've had my own problems with Babble, and then with EnMasse, which proved to be a kind of Babble(ML). You are, of course, entirely right, both about the feral participants there, and also the "moderators." These are line boards pretending they're not.

He seems to have outed me though:

Dr. Dawg wrote:
I agree with Horwath: such resolutions are not helpful. They are, in fact, chilling. This one was moved by Unionist's evil twin, from the sound of it.

Damn - how the hell did he know!?

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

Dr. Dawg wrote:
There is a good (on-going) discussion of the "apartheid" question at my place--just do a search on the word.

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.

remind remind's picture

:D :D @ slumberjack

 

That Dawg jumped in was freaking hilarious, but then I noticed he took the time to self-promote too.

Stargazer

remind wrote:

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.

 

I guess you missed the fact that WOMEN posted on her wall too. Did you also miss the fact that is a representative for the NDP?

Remind, I am a woman and a feminist and frankly, I do not think it is winning us over allies to call everyone who posted on her wall male privileged. That is bullshit. If your brand of feminism is defending her simply because she is a woman I want no part of it.

 

Is this a NDP right or wrong thing or do you truly believe that the well thought out comments on her FB, by her "friends", was "so full of male privilege as to be hypocritical"?

In order to believe the first you would have to have read a different thread on her FB than was posted here.

She is an elected representative. She has a duty to represent those who voted her in and she doesn't get a pass because she is a woman. She screwed the left over - she now reaps what she sowed.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:

:D :D @ slumberjack 

That Dawg jumped in was freaking hilarious, but then I noticed he took the time to self-promote too.

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.

skdadl

Ooh. We are havin' teh board warz.

 

synthome, aka Unionist is le sinthome, aka Derrida: There are a number of people around here who have read Derrida, y'know, were reading him thirty-plus years ago, and a few of us actually knew him. I have bad news for you: as Lloyd Bentsen might have said, you're no Jacques Derrida. Derrida was in person a very gentle man, very generous, firm in his ... well, his vision, perhaps, rather than his views ... but even while holding to that vision, he was not -- oh, what's the word I'm looking for? -- bumptious? That's it. He was definitely not bumptious.

 

There are people around here who I think might have earned the right to sign themselves "Derrida" -- Catchfire comes to mind, except Catchfire would never do that because he is not presumptuous, and gosh knows, he ain't bumptious neither.

 

I didn't write to DiNovo's wall that night because I am so seldom at FB, but if I had seen that reference turning Kazemi/Arar into a zero-sum game, slagging feminists and rationalizing the torture of Muslim men, if I had seen that coming through on my feed, I certainly would have protested it. I protest it now, and I will go on protesting it unless and until it is withdrawn. I doubt that Jacques Derrida would have any problem with that. Blessings be upon him.

 

 

remind remind's picture

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.

Unionist

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:

Unionist: For what it's worth, I think you are being sincere and I appreciate it.

Thanks. Whether we agree on substance or not, I don't think I adopt positions here just to provoke or be devil's advocate. I honestly wish you could be reinstated here and present your views on the issues, but I think there's a difference between my attacking a public figure (no matter how harshly, or even mistakenly), and your attacking, in rather extreme terms, a fellow babbler. Anyway, it's up to you I guess.

Quote:
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.

I fully agree - not primarily because of my attack on her actions, but mainly because I'm not from Ontario, I'm not a member or supporter of the ONDP, and I'm not her personal friend or acquaintance. That's why I encouraged people who are some or all of the above to talk to her and see if she'll recognize that what she did was wrong. She's not Harper or Ignatieff, and I simply don't believe that her error - if she recognizes it as such - was fatal. And I'm NOT talking about her opinion as to whether "apartheid" is a good word to use in this context or not - I'm talking about her support for Shurman's draconian motion and her response to her friends who criticized her.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
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.  

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?

remind remind's picture

SJ

 

because, it is HER SPACE, whereas her constituency office is not, and then there is also the factor,  elected official do just that SJ, except it is not  publically done in front of millions.

 

no one said a word about sacred ground, so  please stop with the overblown rhetoric when responding to me, as there is already enough of that floating around here.

stalking  and bullying whether here or on FB, is violence against a person. No matter if one disagrees with the person one is doing it to or not, does not entitle one to carry on, when it has been shown to be unwelcome, which is also why the dude from spurs, was not allowed back here under other monikers.

That people still do, after it has been indicated unacceptable behaviour, is a sign of their own perceived privilege.

 

If you told me here to back away from the computer, I would telling you to FRO, and you, perhaps, would be getting a comment from a moderator about what makes you think you have a right to tell me to back away.

 

Unionist is le ...

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.

aka Mycroft

I saw Derrida eat cheese in person once. My friend said he reminded her of her cat.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Quote:
There are people around here who I think might have earned the right to sign themselves "Derrida" -- Catchfire comes to mind, except Catchfire would never do that because he is not presumptuous, and gosh knows, he ain't bumptious neither.

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.

remind remind's picture

Good grief "intellectual royalty" indeed..and then putting Levi Strauss into that category is well....pukeable.

 

 

Freedom 55

remind wrote:

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

 

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.

skdadl

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:

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.

 

Sorry if I sounded too harsh, synthome, but I perceived that you started all this by going after Unionist, which to me should not happen here.

 

When Derrida published the Grammatology, he was 37 and a professor at the École Normale Supérieure, a member of an elite intellectual group in Paris and already on his way on the international academic circuit (especially with the Yale crowd), so I woudn't overdo the melodrama of his actually daring to read Rousseau, y'know. (I read Rousseau, and I'm just a li'l ole lady from Medicine Hat.)  Derrida loved Rousseau; so do I; that's how we connected. He actually pays a clever indirect tribute in the Grammatology to the great Rousseau scholar of his time, Jean Starobinski, who seems to have got both the joke and the tribute that many others have missed (Starobinski added footnotes to the Grammatology to La Transparence et l'obstacle). The Grammatology is an audacious book in its rejection of classical French education (also part of the joke), but Derrida was very respectful of people who did good work, however different from his, like Starobinski.

 

I recognize that in some ways his whole life just had to be audacious -- Maghrebian Jew who survived WWII in Vichy France -- I mean, that would present a challenge, no question. Also, by the mid-1970s, the political climate in France was turning pretty neo, in the universities as well, the energy and optimism of the 1960s dissipated, and Derrida was beginning to feel fearful, I'm sure with good reason. That was one reason he appreciated so much his North American contacts.

 

L'affaire de Man was a great sadness for many, especially Derrida, although I never admired de Man and was sorry to see Derrida invest so much in him.

 

So it was a troubled life, like so many, but with many moments of well-deserved glory, and bravely lived by a genuinely good and gentle man.

 

Prophit

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.

skdadl

Prophit, Derrida also spent a night in jail in Prague in 1982 after going there to speak to a group of dissident writers (inspired by the famous Czech Group 42). I know that he was very shaken by that experience, which must have brought back memories. It was hard to be a European of his generation and not have flashbacks whenever police power suddenly overwhelmed all humane reason.

 

L'affaire de Man is outlined roughly [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Man#Posthumous_controversy]here,[/URL] for those who don't know it. It left many people struggling with their consciences over the question of what a collaborator is, how we think of him, how we think of his work afterwards.

remind remind's picture

Freedom 55 wrote:
remind wrote:
That some are questioning CDN's self proclaimed "queerness" here is  absolutely hyprocritical.

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.

 

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!

Michelle

remind, it sounds to me like you don't really understand how Facebook works, especially when it comes to how politicians use it.

When you become "friends" with someone, all of your posts show up in that friend's newsfeed.  So whenever Cheri posted anything, all her "friends" had it posted on their news walls.  The reason why politicians try to friend everyone in the universe (and Cheri is one of those politicians, unless you believe that she just happens to be chatting with 4400 of her closest pals on Facebook) is because whenever you write a status update, you're broadcasting it to tons of people.  And on everyone's status update, people can write "comments" underneath it.  It's FB culture for everyone to broadcast what they're writing, and also FB culture for everyone to feel free to respond to whatever a friend posts.

Facebook is NOT private when you use it, not in the least.  When you friend thousands upon thousands of people (as Cheri has), and you're a politician who is clearly using FB to communicate with your constituents and "fans", then it is not some personal, private little space of yours.  Furthermore, politicians like Cheri who use social media for outreach generally ask everyone else to be THEIR friends, not the other way around.  It's probably someone's job to monitor Cheri's account and invite as many people as possible to be "friends" with her on FB.  That's how the majority of people in that protest group said they became "friends" with her on FB.

So this idea that someone is invading her personal space by posting comments under her FB posts is as ridiculous as claiming that someone who posts comments under a blogger's public posts is somehow invading the blogger's space.

As for Andrew "telling her what to do" - that's ridiculous too.  He was clearly just making a comment about how aggressive and out of control she was acting during the discussion.  It's a common sentiment, when someone's getting overheated and saying stupid shit online they might regret later to suggest that they "step away from the keyboard".  It's a funny way of saying, "You're out of control."  And, of course, as it turns out, the advice was valid - she WAS out of control.

Finally - sexism?  Please.  That's ridiculous.  Nobody in that thread did anything sexist.  There were lots of female posts in that thread.  And you know what?  Maybe if Cheri hadn't defriended and deleted the posts of the Muslim women and men of colour who tried to share their opinions with her before, there might have been more of them responding during Saturday night's thread.  Unless, of course, only women and men of colour who agree with her are the ones that are worth hearing from.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Michelle wrote:

 

Finally - sexism?  Please.  That's ridiculous.  Nobody in that thread did anything sexist.  There were lots of female posts in that thread.  And you know what?  Maybe if Cheri hadn't defriended and deleted the posts of the Muslim women and men of colour who tried to share their opinions with her before, there might have been more of them responding during Saturday night's thread.  Unless, of course, only women and men of colour who agree with her are the ones that are worth hearing from.

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.

Stockholm

This is getting so tiresome. Why don't we chat about something really thought-provoking and consequential - like Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer!

Sineed

Stockholm wrote:

This is getting so tiresome. Why don't we chat about something really thought-provoking and consequential - like Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer!

What did they do now?!?

takeitslowly

remind wrote:

Freedom 55 wrote:
remind wrote:
That some are questioning CDN's self proclaimed "queerness" here is  absolutely hyprocritical.

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.

 

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!

 

Not the same issue, your comparison only apply if the anonymous person was accused of exercising male privilege, and the said person immediately claim even though she has a penis, she is actually a woman and therefore cannot be exercising male privilege.

Stargazer

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

It is not a pretty sight.

Fidel

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:
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.

That is some handle.

The Tabernacle: You have destroyed us. You found the flaw in the crystal. We are gone. You are alone. - Zardoz, 1974

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Stargazer wrote:

I'll take 100 unionists over DiNovo or you any day. Creep.

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.

Stockholm

Sineed wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

This is getting so tiresome. Why don't we chat about something really thought-provoking and consequential - like Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer!

What did they do now?!?

 

Now Guergis wants to sue the airport employees who exposed her hissy fit - claiming that they violated her privacy!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Michelle wrote:

remind, it sounds to me like you don't really understand how Facebook works, especially when it comes to how politicians use it.

When you become "friends" with someone, all of your posts show up in that friend's newsfeed.  So whenever Cheri posted anything, all her "friends" had it posted on their news walls.  The reason why politicians try to friend everyone in the universe (and Cheri is one of those politicians, unless you believe that she just happens to be chatting with 4400 of her closest pals on Facebook) is because whenever you write a status update, you're broadcasting it to tons of people.  And on everyone's status update, people can write "comments" underneath it.  It's FB culture for everyone to broadcast what they're writing, and also FB culture for everyone to feel free to respond to whatever a friend posts.

Facebook is NOT private when you use it, not in the least.  When you friend thousands upon thousands of people (as Cheri has), and you're a politician who is clearly using FB to communicate with your constituents and "fans", then it is not some personal, private little space of yours.  Furthermore, politicians like Cheri who use social media for outreach generally ask everyone else to be THEIR friends, not the other way around.  It's probably someone's job to monitor Cheri's account and invite as many people as possible to be "friends" with her on FB.  That's how the majority of people in that protest group said they became "friends" with her on FB.

So this idea that someone is invading her personal space by posting comments under her FB posts is as ridiculous as claiming that someone who posts comments under a blogger's public posts is somehow invading the blogger's space.

As for Andrew "telling her what to do" - that's ridiculous too.  He was clearly just making a comment about how aggressive and out of control she was acting during the discussion.  It's a common sentiment, when someone's getting overheated and saying stupid shit online they might regret later to suggest that they "step away from the keyboard".  It's a funny way of saying, "You're out of control."  And, of course, as it turns out, the advice was valid - she WAS out of control.

Finally - sexism?  Please.  That's ridiculous.  Nobody in that thread did anything sexist.  There were lots of female posts in that thread.  And you know what?  Maybe if Cheri hadn't defriended and deleted the posts of the Muslim women and men of colour who tried to share their opinions with her before, there might have been more of them responding during Saturday night's thread.  Unless, of course, only women and men of colour who agree with her are the ones that are worth hearing from.

*clap*clap*clap*

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Thank you for posting what you did Freedom 55. I would particularly like to thank you for the respectful, qualified way you wrote when you raised the points you did -- and I think they are completely valid. I too have encountered the situations where "allies" appropriate the identity of and start to speak on behalf of others... I think it is important to underscore that nothing in your post is there to deny or even significantly challenge DiNovo's statement, it simply seeks clarification.

I would really appreciate seeing the same points raised in the LGBT forum at some point, they are definitely worth exploring -- hopefully away from the currently over-charged atmosphere a discussion of DiNovo's words has generated.

remind remind's picture

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.

Pages

Topic locked