Cheri DiNovo should apologize

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jaku

 

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:
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.

I have read tales from a long ago time when certain individuals did tried to speak up. They were not liked and they were vanquished forever from the land of Babble...it was a time long long ago...the spirit people tell the story but only at times far away frrom the mods and in places dark and small.

Bacchus

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)

Bacchus

Personally Im not sure of Reminds assertion that this wouldnt happen to a guy, but then I wouldnt rule it out either.  Public meltdowns are fodder for gossip but I dont think its a sexist thing but rather a 'left eats its own' thing.

genstrike

remind wrote:

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.

Purist?  Left elite?

She not only voted to condemn us, but spoke in favour of a motion condeming us.  I worked my ass off to bring IAW to Winnipeg, and DiNovo voted to condemn my comrades in Ontario.

I expect my allies not to publicly condemn me.  If that makes me a purist or part of a left elite or a privileged white male, so be it.

I mean, if this is the definition of purism, at this point we might as well call Caesar a purist for being disappointed with Brutus.

Sineed

Mike Nenonen wrote:
Out of curiosity, 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.

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.

Kaspar Hauser

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.

 

 

remind remind's picture

genstrike wrote:
  I worked my ass off to bring IAW to Winnipeg, and DiNovo voted to condemn my comrades in Ontario.

Oh you poor boy, all that work and no respect...oh right it was in Ontario not Manitoba.....

Quote:
I expect my allies not to publicly condemn me.

that street goes 2 ways eh.....

 

 

 

genstrike

remind wrote:

genstrike wrote:
  I worked my ass off to bring IAW to Winnipeg, and DiNovo voted to condemn my comrades in Ontario.

Oh you poor boy, all that work and no respect...oh right it was in Ontario not Manitoba.....

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.

remind wrote:
Quote:
I expect my allies not to publicly condemn me.

that street goes 2 ways eh.....

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

remind remind's picture

well apparently  most do not know what being an ally means anyway.....

Unionist

Sineed wrote:

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

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.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Or just ask her to spend some time becoming acquainted with the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, straight, gay, male, female, young, old, able bodied and not. For every single one of them their lives are defined and shaped by the occupation and the slow strangulation of what remains of their social and cultural identities. Know them and know how they live and the next time it comes around, we can all be confident that Ms. DiNovo will do the right thing. One can't be a living, breathing human being and not be moved by the plight of Palestinians under occupation. To not be moved, one would have to be a dimanno.

Unionist

Good, FM. Very good.

 

genstrike

All right, I think we seem to have inadvertently identified a major question plaguing the left today:

What are our expectations of politicians, particularly "progressive" ones, ones who claim to represent the left in Parliament and be our "ally"?  How should the people who bust their asses often thanklessly and for little to no reward confront well-paid politicians with status?  How do we tell who our friends and enemies are?

Me, I'm more turned off by these politicians to begin with.  So, I get very upset when they do things like this.

Sineed

unionist wrote:
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,

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).

NorthReport

It's one thing to disagree but this is a bit over the top, yes.

NDP leader furious over death threats

 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/03/16/13255016.html

Caissa

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

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

It's one thing to disagree but this is a bit over the top, yes.

So is this:

Quote:
... the NDP has not contacted the police at the family’s request.

That's understandable - usually it's the target of death threats that contacts the police, no?

And if she hasn't, why not?

 

NorthReport

 

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

It's one thing to disagree but this is a bit over the top, yes.

So is this:

Quote:
... the NDP has not contacted the police at the family’s request.

That's understandable - usually it's the target of death threats that contacts the police, no?

And if she hasn't, why not?

 

Are we attacking the victim here?

remind remind's picture

perhaps she has, unionist and wants to keep an iota of privacy....

 

and i see no reason to label anything in that comment about the NDP not contacting the police as over the top. Unlike, the death threats CDN has received.

 

yes, NR that is what blamming the victim looks like.

Stargazer

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.

Stargazer

How is she a "victim"? She is no better than Jaku, or Peech in her crazy defense for Israel. She isn't a victim! Bloody hell, she sided with the oppressors in this fight. That doesn't make her a victim.

NorthReport

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.

remind remind's picture

really stargazer....you aren't stating that you do not believe her, are you?

 

if a woman tells me she has been raped or sexually harassed, or indeed beaten by her partner, i would never ever  state that we have no evidence of that, nor that she has only herself to blame.

 

in fact, i would say her  anger on FB, is directly representative of her actually having been threatened.

 

there is so much that is disgusting about  this attack upon CDN, i thought it could not be topped, well it most certainly has.

Stargazer

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.

 

 

 

 

Unionist

remind wrote:

perhaps she has, unionist and wants to keep an iota of privacy....

Doesn't sound right, remind. Why did she announce publicly that: "I'm getting death threats!!!" - but won't say, "Well of course I've called the police!" You think she didn't breach her own privacy by announcing the death threats? No one would ever have heard of them otherwise.

Have you ever heard of someone contacting the media and saying, "I've been raped!" - but when asked if s/he has called the police, says: "No comment, that's private."

Quite frankly, until I see credible evidence that death threats have been issued (and calling the police is a minimum), I have no reason to believe that there is any victim here.

You realize that when you call the police, and it turns out there is zero evidence that anything has happened, there could be implications under the Criminal Code?

I would like to repeat: Why did she announce that she has received death threats? What purpose is served by making that public?

I have my own tentative answer in mind.

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

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.

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.

John J

"Israel right or wrong" is a dumb position. So is "I don't care if she's been threatened she's a bad person."

Probably not the best way to build momentum.

Speaking of which, when Israel is behaving so deplorably that even the Conservatives are compelled to criticize does it make much sense to focus all of this energy and outrage on one member (and not a governing member) of the provincial parliament (which has no mandate to explore these issues)?

It would seem to me that folks who are concerned about the plight of people living under occupation could actually help them by putting some pressure on our federal government - or the Israeli government - around issues that they actually feel vulnerable on.

remind remind's picture

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.

 

Unionist

John J wrote:

It would seem to me that folks who are concerned about the plight of people living under occupation could actually help them by putting some pressure on our federal government - or the Israeli government - around issues that they actually feel vulnerable on.

Sure thing, but putting pressure on the federal government means relying on your best political parties and representatives to speak on your behalf and get that message across. If a high-profile NDP elected member is supporting Shurman's resolution and defying her leader's policy statement on the issue, this kind of eases up the pressure on the bad guys, doesn't it!!?? Especially when they can say, "Oh, look, even the lefties want to condemn criticism of Israel".

All she has to do is accept responsibility for having spoken out of turn, keep her personal views to herself or else clearly distance them from the party's position. An apology for supporting the suppressing of free debate would not infringe on her life or liberty. It would close this chapter. Complaining about death threats merely adds fuel to the flame of those who are preparing to ban anti-Israel speech - soon they'll talk about those IAW "death squads" out there... What she is doing is actually very gratuitous and shameful, and she should stop.

Don't you agree?

 

Stockholm

Stargazer wrote:

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.

 

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.

Unionist

Just noticed this from the Sun article:

Quote:
Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak also lamented the threats against Di Novo, saying he was proud of Shurman for introducing the motion.

How sweet and nice. The good people are all lining up to tut-tut about the evil murderous anti-Israel terrorists. I wonder where this is headed?

Stargazer

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.

Michelle

I can see Stargazer's point.  Cheri DiNovo certainly misrepresented and exaggerated what happened on FB while it was going on in order to attack progressives who disagreed with her, so some scepticism is understandable.  I mean, I know what I would do if someone phoned me and threatened to kill me.  I'd call the police and have them trace any calls that come in afterwards - and she claimed it had been going on for a week, so you'd think they'd have some evidence by now if people are really calling her family and threatening to kill her.

That said...I actually don't have any problem believing that she got angry and possibly threatening calls at home, though.  Anyone with any sort of public profile gets that sort of thing when they do or say something controversial.  Hell, I have even received threatening and abusive e-mails over moderating issues on babble!  (Although no death threats yet, thank goodness.)  And I agree that any calls to her at home are out of bounds, whether threatening or not.

But she has no idea who called her, and yet she was flinging around wild speculation that it was one of the people trying to engage her on Facebook, which is ridiculous - they certainly weren't engaging in anything threatening or even abusive there, so why would they call her at home and send death threats to her? 

For all we know, it could have been right-wing neo-Nazis who made the calls.  It could have been anyone.  What I don't believe is that it was the NDP-supporting activists who were posting polite disagreement with her on her wall.  And there is a slant to this article and even more of one in the Star that I read yesterday, a subtle implication that these threats are coming from NDP-leaning Palestinian rights activists.

I mean, the Star article specifically mentions Facebook and characterizes what people were posting on Cheri's wall (polite disagreement that she kept deleting) as "worse" and "more nasty" than anti-semitic e-mails Peter Shurman were getting calling him anti-semitic names.  The only person being "nasty" on Cheri's wall was...wait for it...Cheri.  She was the one that called the people trying to engage her on the issue "idiots" and "fascists".

But she certainly won the mainstream spin wars, that's for sure.  Of course the mainstream media would consider her the "good guy" for supporting the right side in the Israel-Palestine issue, so they'd paint polite opposition to Cheri as "nasty" and "hateful" but not even mention Cheri's juvenile response of namecalling at all.

But that's okay.  Mainstream media encourages everyone to vote Liberal and Tory.  It's not the mainstream media she has to impress - they're not the ones who vote for her, they're not the ones who volunteer on her campaigns - it's the NDP base activists who are against war, and against colonization.  And I think that her base knows that there's more to the story than the Toronto Star and Toronto Sun spin.

Stockholm

Lawrence Cannon has also criticized Israel for building those new settlements in the occupied territories. I hereby accuse Lawrence Cannon - Conservative Minister of Foreign Affairs of being an Anti-Semite!! (sic.)

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Unionist wrote:

Doesn't sound right, remind. Why did she announce publicly that: "I'm getting death threats!!!" - but won't say, "Well of course I've called the police!" You think she didn't breach her own privacy by announcing the death threats? No one would ever have heard of them otherwise.

Have you ever heard of someone contacting the media and saying, "I've been raped!" - but when asked if s/he has called the police, says: "No comment, that's private."

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.

 

Unionist

Lou - I'm with Stargazer - DiNovo is not a victim - she's the one who victimized people who are targeted daily by the Harper regime. Like some countries in the Middle East that I know, her response to criticism of that stand is to present herself as a victim. I'm not convinced.

But perhaps, since you're asking me to "back off", you could explain why she made these death threats public?

Other question: Do you think she should apologize for her speech?

 

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

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...

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

 

Polunatic2

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. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I see little reason to doubt that Cheri received the threats she claims to have recieved. I agree with remind and Lou that repeated and constant hectoring of her on this issue is akin to blaming the victim. She'll wear her unfortunate, ill-informed comments and her subsequent breakdown for the rest of her career, believe it. What I see here is starting to look like abuse. This discussion needs to cease focussing on a single individual and broaden to consider the whole anti-apartheid movement, in Ontario, in Canada, and worldwide.

gita, in the previous thread, gave the best perspective, imo, of how to move forward:

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.

Polunatic2

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). 

Bookish Agrarian

From Michelle Anyone with any sort of public profile gets that sort of thing when they do or say something controversial.

Not to be too pedantic, but it doesn't take saying or doing something controversial. All it takes, in my experience having received them, is saying something someone disagrees with - passionately disagrees with I would think.

 

Given the heat of this topic even just on babble, does it really take that much imagination to think maybe someone took their disagreement too far.

 

In my experiences I did not make the threats public as it was a toss up whether or not it might make the two people this has happened with, escalate their behaviour even more.

Contacting the police was a pretty zero sum game, although I did the first time, because it is not as if people say Hi - I'm John Smith and my number is .... when calling to make a threat. Real life is not CSI.

 

I even had a mailed threat recently that was only addressed to me and the town I live in (no postal code, no return address - nothing), yet it got through because I am well known, over something so uncontroversial it was mostly funny, so yeah threats happen all the time so it shouldn't be surprising that there might have been someone who took this a step to far.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Quote:
Lou - I'm with Stargazer - DiNovo is not a victim - she's the one who victimized people who are targeted daily by the Harper regime. Like some countries in the Middle East that I know, her response to criticism of that stand is to present herself as a victim. I'm not convinced.

But perhaps, since you're asking me to "back off", you could explain why she made these death threats public?

Other question: Do you think she should apologize for her speech?

 

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.

Tommy_Paine

 

You know, the onus of proof is on the person making the claim.   I take Remind's point about not blaming the victim.  But we do that on the understanding that there is nothing but disinsentive for that person to make such a claim.   Unfortunately, that is not the case here With DiNovo. 

Which is not to even say that I disbelieve her claims.  Just that I can't believe them given the current climate and lack of evidence supplied to us.

 

Thing is, in the current situation, nothing is going to change, except for people letting their feet sink deeper into their positional cement.   

And, I can't help but think there is really more going on here than we know.  

I don't think Stargazer's or Unionists speculations are off base, in fact it's not an unlikely scenario, in my mind.   However, if that is true, then DiNovo is even less likely to appologize, have a change of heart or whatever.   

Maybe if space was allowed, a cooling off period not just here but all around DiNovo, then we might find out more, DiNovo may find some face saving pretext in which to mend fences with something like a appology etc.

Or, likely not.

In which case, I suggest we stop with the vitriole, and govern our activities suchwise.   No one has a gun to your head to be an ONDP member, or to work in DiNovo's campaign, etc.  

Sometimes, you know, your party leaves you.

 

 

 

Caissa

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

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:
What I see here is starting to look like abuse.

She should apologize - don't you agree?

Has anyone asked her to do so?

As for "abuse", would you say that if all this criticism were directed at Frank Dimant or Bernie Farber or Michael Ignatieff or Helena Guergis or Bob Rae?

She's a public figure and she is responsible for her stands. Has anyone here attacked her personally? She has gratuitously made statements about her own private life - such as "I am queer" and "my family has been threatened" and so on. This is diversionary nonsense and it should not be the subject of any discussion in a political setting - yet, it worked - and instead of talking about the slaughter of Gaza, we're talking about the poor frightened people of Sderot (to provide an analogy), and if we're not sympathetic enough to the poor victims of Sderot, why then, we're heartless abusers.

 

 

Michelle

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."

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
remind wrote:
perhaps she has, unionist and wants to keep an iota of privacy....

Doesn't sound right, remind. Why did she announce publicly that: "I'm getting death threats!!!" - but won't say, "Well of course I've called the police!" You think she didn't breach her own privacy by announcing the death threats? No one would ever have heard of them otherwise.

Have you ever heard of someone contacting the media and saying, "I've been raped!" - but when asked if s/he has called the police, says: "No comment, that's private."

Because perhaps she is afraid that if she states she has gone to the police, it might encite further actions against her, as if they are going to go down they might as well take her with them.

 

Also, why would she hurt a police investigation by stating there was one happening?

 

And you know what, I have been raped, and I have stated publically that I have been raped, just as I did now, and if anyone asked  if I had called the police, I would state "that is none of your business".

Because it isn't.

Quote:
I have my own tentative answer in mind.

 

You are blamming the victim, full stop, you have absolutely no knowlege of what she has done or not done. Moreover, you inferred some pretty filthy things.... hope you remove it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Unionist wrote:
As for "abuse", would you say that if all this criticism were directed at Frank Dimant or Bernie Farber or Michael Ignatieff or Helena Guergis or Bob Rae?

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.

Unionist

I think I have to make it very clear that I don't care whether Cheri DiNovo got death threats or not. It's not important to me. She's an adult and a public figure. She can handle it. I am perfectly prepared to believe that she got some vicious ugly PMs saying horrible things.

But when she went public with this, it was the same as Shurman going public with his "minister of kikes" and "Nazi". Whether she intends it or not, it will help our enemies pour filth on the Palestinian people, their supporters, and on non-Jews and Jews of conscience who are engaged selflessly and against huge pressures in the work to seek justice.

It's a diversion in Shurman's case. It's a diversion in DiNovo's case. And as Stockholm pointed out, it's working.

Both Shurman and DiNovo must be condemned for their stand of trying to suppress innocent people engaging in free debate and fighting for justice.

If DiNovo doesn't apologize, it will mean that she doesn't recognize that she has done anything wrong - and she (and others) will do it again. Every time someone stands up - and especially someone with progressive creds - and spews the kind of stuff she did against the movement for justice in the Middle East, it brings the agenda of Harper and Kenney one step closer to realization. Surely everyone here recognizes that, whether they like the word "apartheid" or not.

If she won't retract, she should be told to stop talking publicly about the subject in the name of the ONDP. That may limit the damage.

Catchfire wrote:
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.

We cross-posted - and it turns out I answered your point without having read it. Do you actually not see the damage done when progressive high-profile NDP politicians take a stand like this? Do you think we should waste our time trying to get Ignatieff or Bob Rae to apologize? We need the DiNovos on our side, otherwise where do we turn for support?

And please, Catchfire, I didn't "ridicule" her claims of receiving threats. I am questioning why the hell she talks about it and about being "queer" and all the rest of it, when she should just deal with what she has done and what friends and allies are criticizing her for. And guess what - she has not yet dealt with those criticisms. Has she?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

Pages

Topic locked