Ongoing battle around IAW, and using, or not using, the A word to describe Israel's actions in ON

Why a thread that limits using the word "apartheid"? It is what it is.  Just because Cheri claims Israel isn't an apartheid state does not make it so. So what message is being transmitted by this thread title?

I say this because this is a game of semantics now. Oh hey, I didn't like the message the other thread gave, so now I'll make my own with my own slant, which is fine, but is confusing. Do you believe it is an Apartheid state or are we now to stop using that word, because that is the message I'm getting in the OP (and I am probably getting it wrong - so correct remind if so).

Not sure if we want to further edit the OP title or not remind, but it seems that with this title we're back to square one. I guess another score for DiNovo and Shurman. No mention of Israel and Apartheid in the same sentence?

Stargazer, I merely used  the letter A, as I did not wnat to make the title longer than it was, not because I did not want to use apartheid.

And now that I long at it it appears to be meaning Israel is involved in actions in ON, which perhaps they are, but that is not what I meant, so really I am not opposed to a thread title change, I just was making a point that unionist changed it after making a continued on from here OP.

When in essence, that is not what he was doing, he was actually starting a  completely thread on what he wanted to  slant towards.

all about how it appears on the front page and all...

We must have read completely different facebook posts. No one said anything disrespectful or threatening to her on FB (that was public anyways. I have no idea what her messages consisted of).

10 dollars to anyone who can point me to a "threatening" post from anyone of her supporters.

So, you're saying that discussing this is "attacking" her and we are trying to "destroy" her.

Wow. Okay then. Shut the thread. Game over. Cheri is a victim and we are destroying her deliberately because we just felt like it. Cheri is completely blameless. We on the left are just doing this for kicks and giggles.

That's it. No need to discuss this further.

Come on, Stargazer. I don't think that's fair wrt what I wrote. I think repeated demands for her to apologize are over the top and hectoring. I think she probably did receive threats over the phone, as she claimed. I don't think the fb page was threatening, but I do think she took some hard knocks that shook her. It was an online pile-up, and that can be brutal. My position is to criticize her actions and comments, say she should apologize, and then move on.

ETA: I also think the thread title is a bit silly. Why not just "Cheri DiNovo and Apartheid"?

I think it is fair to say DiNovo did not anticipate the response she has received.

It's perfectly obvious to me that Stargazer was responding to remind's opening post, not to yours.

Hectoring!? Um, no, Catchfire, no one has asked her to apologize yet. I opened a thread saying it was not my place because I don't know her, don't support her, don't like her. It's her progressive allies and supporters and acquaintances who must do so. And so far, I haven't heard of anyone doing that in a meaningful way.

Yeah, me too, and I think she complained about them publicly to change the subject.

I happen to agree - and if you read my initial proposal that she apologize and that we should then link arms and close the chapter, that's what I've said all along. But if she doesn't apologize, doesn't retract, doesn't show any recognition - what then? As long as she gives herself the right to do what she did in the legislature that day, how can you say the chapter is closed?

I agree with you for the most part Catchfire, however, I don't agree that what was done to her (which was simply people respectfully trying to engage her in discussion over her stance, including many women, self-identified queers and Muslim "friends" of hers). It was a deserved pile on. She turned her back on her progressive base, and then spit on them more when they tried to engage her in discussion (by defriending and deleting any and all who disagreed with her). This is not what I want from any one in a leadership position.On top of that, she called people "fascists" in line with her anti-Muslim buddy Tarek Fatah.

If she would do the decent thing, which is apologize, then this would be over. However, not only has she not bothered to apologize, she has attacked those who criticized her words. That is a far stretch from being a "victim". She is not going to apologize. She is going to continue tossing progressives under the bus, which is what she is doing every time she is interviewed on this issue. You have to admit that calling people "fascists" and standing in strong support of Tarek Fatah is a little much.

By the way, this is not about whether or not to use the term "apartheid". Anyone who doesn't agree that it's accurate, or doesn't think its a good tactic, is free to say so. These threads have been very specifically about the attempts to suppress IAW and any use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel. The other debate can go on somewhere else - in the international forum for example. The subject here is the growth of fascist repression of free debate and dissent, part of Harper's onslaught including Durban and KAIROS and UNRWA and Peter Kent's war declaration and Rights and Democracy - need I go on?

back at ya!

Did I try to supress your voice, like you did mine no?  I only dared to question the humanity of the darling Unionist who doesn't apparently give a rats ass if another person is threatened or not.  In my books that is just another kind of fundamentalism and should be called to task.  You are free to believe being a jerk is okay as long as you agree with them. 

Life, the universe, I think you might have misunderstood what Unionist meant.

What I took from his post isn't that he doesn't care about her wellbeing after she received death threats.

I think what he meant is that whether or not she received threats is beside the point in the discussion - it's not relevant to the discussion of whether she was right or wrong on the motion, and whether she has tried to stifle debate.

Unionist doesn't strike me as the type who can't feel empathy.  He just used "I don't care" to mean "I think that's irrelevant to the point" rather than "I don't care about her wellbeing".

You're welcome, Stargazer.

I was looking forward to the pro-DiNovo thread.

I would care if you were threatened. I care deeply about Life.

The library left a message about those books - seems they're overdue. Need a loan? Life is fine.

By the way, thanks Michelle for understanding my point. You may want to lend Life one of your books after s/he's returned the naughty ones. The thing about lending to Life, though, is that we're all living on borrowed time.

What is this? Get Unionist to say something nasty about Lou day? Lou, I love you, and if had the budget, I'd gladly bear your children. Now perhaps you could comment on the real political issue at hand instead of siding with another poster who made an unprovoked personal attack against me, in violation of babble policy.

Do you think Cheri DiNovo should apologize and retract? If so, who is best placed to put that suggestion to her in a way that won't aggravate the situation? We need her on our side.

Thanks, Stargazer, but you're wasting your breath unfortunately. Some people have a hard time keeping political disagreement separate from personal dislike. And it's political disagreement which is at the very heart of the problem here.

No personal attack, simply calling you on your callous crap.  You feel free to do whatever you wish all the time.  But as soon as you do it you go on and on about how you are being personally attacked.  Irony all around.

Nope, you're correct skdadl.

Thanks, Stargazer. Torture -- y'know, it's always such a problem for me. Like, I find it rilly rilly hard to get past torture.

I hope that kitteh is ok, Fidel. And of course I go on voting NDP -- what else can we do? Hold your ground, Andrea!

That's correct - 100%. It would be ironic if DiNovo's attack on progressives became a re-opening of the discussion here about how good or bad Israel really is, instead of all of us agreeing that it's not a good thing to join Harper and Kenney in their attack on democracy in Canada.

The thread unionist linked to of rasmus' was indeed only about CDN  "self destruction", it made NO pretense of being about anything other than that. It was a mocking attack geared to further her destruction, and sfae. Please do not make it appear noble as it wasn't.

Thread title is Cheri di Novo self-destructs

The former threads on this were about her:

1. Taking a stand opposite that what some of  her allies believed she should be

2. How politicians do not have the right to tell Canadians what they should or should not being thinking and using as words.

18.2% of the valid vote was for the NDP in the last Federal election.  Since the voter turn out was 58.8% of the eligible population that would mean that the NDP got support from 10.7% of all eligible Canadians, while 41.2% considered them similar enough to the Liberals and Conservates that they didn't care.  The fact is if just one party new or pre-existing showed enough respect to voters that they could trust them and offered reasonable comprimise on divisive issues they could easily win a commanding majority particularly given our first past the post system.

Follow the campaign funding war chests. Did the NDP have the same kind of money to spend on reaching all Canadians with their socialist propaganda as the two Bay Street parties? I don't think so. I've met people in my hometown who still think the NDP are a party of Bolsheviks.  I wonder who with the money and access to propaganda tools educated them with that idea over extended periods of time?

No, I think Canadians aren't voting because they are just not impressed with the two old line parties' records in power over the last 25 years. And this is that point in time when the Liberal Party risks becoming an irrelevant conservative party unless they move back to the middle-left from far right politics. Canadians aren't falling for Liberal Party campaign promises on the left and governance on the right in such large phony-majority numbers anymore.

Harper's still a 22% tin pot even with all that Bay Street money behind the reformatories.

She's lost any and all respect I held for her.

Nonsense Michelle.

Please do reread what I said above regarding the stalking and harassing on Facebook.

You have issues with what she did state it a couple of times politely on her wall if your are "friends". You have issues beyond that you take it like a mature adult to her constituency office, and  deal with it there. Even if you have to picket said office to get your point across.

just as if there are seriosu issues here at babble you take it to the mods by email, you do not harang all over the place. If you do your threads get shut or you get banned.

going beyond that is bullying stalking and harassment. Just as if you and a friend were having a fight, you do not repeat phone call them.

Plus I have  absolutely no doubt that some who were her facebook friends also targeted her at home or through pm's. Fuck I know the pm's I get here ffs over much less.from supposed allies.

And my saying so is not smearing anyone.

Did they threaten Cheri and her family? For some reason I wouldn't be surprised if it is true. It wouldn't be the first time that rightwing provocateurs infiltrated a leftwing cause. Any whacko can sign up for an internet account or make anonymous phone calls and leave threatening messages on someone's answering service.

Hey when's the next electoral stooge-off in Ontario?

All right, whatever.  If Elizabeth May had said it, I highly doubt you'd be so defensive.  You don't have any problem with internet pile ups on her, as I remember from the endless vitriol you participated in when you didn't like something she'd said quite a while back, and you certainly weren't open to accusations of sexism when she was being (rightly) taken to task for what she said.

I didn't "know to be watching her wall".  I happened to log onto Facebook and saw it happening live on MY NEWSFEED, not because of rasmus.  He posted it here a good hour or two after DiNovo already deleted the whole thing.   You've said you aren't on Facebook, remind, so maybe you should consider not coming up with silly conspiracy theories when you have no idea how the site works or what you're even talking about.

Anyhow, I've said what I have to say.  You have fun, now.

Yeah, that's pretty shitty. But I'm glad she's made some new friends.

oh goodness, the conspiracy theory, don't look here marginalization of vioice propaganda combined with CoU speaking down, how blessed am I?

My indicating the attacking and stalking of CDN  has got nothing to do with her political affiliation,  and neither actually does my dislike of EMay  have anything really to do with the Green Party, I disliked her long before she was Green leader, going back to when she was just the lowly head of the Sierra Club, and also your subsuming to accusations of partisanship at play, discredit your stance even further.

Nor have I participated in internet pile up on EMay, as I have never trapsed around the internet trashing her, though I must say I do  reserve the right to do it here though. This being the only place where I  discuss politics publically online.

Nor do I say it is her fault, that the  mainstream media  are covering a story on her antics. :rolleyes:

Now having said all of that I admit, I was being a tad smeary, when I made the statement about why were you watching her FB wall,  as  I knew you would challenge it, thus affording me the opportunity to drive the point home that you made just as spurious of an accusation against CDN, by your stating above she was complicit in planned action with the BBC and the Conservatives, against you, the IAW activists and indeed apparently Palestinians too.

And frankly, though I am no fan of CDN's, I do not for one minute believe she does not care about humanity. As one would have to not care, in order to be so complicit.

Hold your ground, Andrea!

Maybe she should find some, first. 

I think Michelle or Unionist mentioned this a few days ago, but something is kinda odd about this.      

Like a lot of people, I wrote to Horvath concerning the IAW issue, and I got back the form letter response we're all familiar with, which indicates that DiNovo was out of step with the party.   But yet, Andrea is four square behind DiNovo.   

Cut to what is really an innocuous debate about education funding in Ontario, and Andrea stiffles anything that might look like dissentious inside the caucus.

It's just plain wierd.

The only thread of consistency I can find in all this is that the official ONDP policy on all issues is that it's a party that sticks up for the little person, gives a voice to the voiceless, in as much as the general establishment is comfortable with it.

That's certainly not the NDP I joined way back when.

The people who are phoning/emailing her and threatening her, because they disagree,  are indeed idiots, and they could  easily be fascist in inclination, if not that they are certainly intolerant of other's rights.

That some people, who were not participating in the FB fiasco, or were not harassing her in her  private life, are taking her lashing out comments personally, is hilarious.

As there is no reason to believe that she meant those who were/are in disagreement with on; her personal position on the use of the word aparthied  in conjunction with Israel and that she thinks she has a right to legislate how people word use against  violent colonialist xenophobic governments oppressing peoples.

People who are righteously angry, or upset, with her over her IAW position, IMV need to focus and disapprove on that, and in fact have a public protest against it, and  to stop with the bullying and harassing everywhere online, it is hyprocritical, ego driven and divisive. And I stand by the fact it would never be done to a male politican.

That she has been blammed for being a victim,  and that people have stated here, on a supposedly progressive forum, that they do not believe her when she says she was threatened, is indicative of  not only hypocrisy,  but  also a lack of actual empathy and acceptance. A couple of the more pertinent requisites for denoting oneself progressive are significantly missing I would say, on the part of those that have done this.

For example, Michelle incorrectly used my antipathy towards EMay as an example that was close to all these threads on CDN, in an attempt to excuse them.  I will here indicate that not once was EMay ever having to go public with being stalked and threatened at her home phone number for her stance on things.

...no matter my antipathy towards her, no one here would ever believe that I would have stated that I did not believe her, and then attacked her for saying so, if she would have had to go public on such a thing.

The way the carrying ons about CDN are going it is getting into the decidedly icky factor, and personally I do not think babble should be tolerating it further and Lou Arab was correct to call a halt to it. Too bad some people did not listen and continue with just slightly modified attacks.

I will agree.  The apartheid word is not the problem with the debates about Israel/Palestine; it is a sympton of a problem in which the active supporters of the current state of Israel do not want people to get to the point where they are discussing BDS against Israel.

Personally, I have no problem calling Israel an apartheid state.  It's just a description of what I think Israel is.  South Africa was once an apartheid state.  So, too, was the United States--particularly in the south.

Does using the word apartheid incite violence or hatred against Israelis and Jews?  Again, apartheid is just a description of what one thinks Israel is.  That word doesn't tell others to seek a course of action.

Now Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions do give people a course of action to take.  It tells people to boycott products that come from Israel, to divest any investments they or their companies may have in Israel, and to advocate that goverments impose sanctions against Israel.  None of these steps advocates violence.

I think that the supporters of the current state of Israel do not want people to get into a discussion about BDS because this may be more effective in getting Israel to negotiate on someone else's terms than all the violence that has taken place between the Palestinians and Israelis.  BDS may change Israel's course of action because BDS may devalue the Israeli shekel.  A devalued shekel may cause Jews to leave Israel in search of more economic prosperity which will weaken the Israeli state.

Alright, I've followed this for a while with interest and read a little bit more into the political situation - which is admittedly not that deep. Israeli affiliated lobby groups and their erstwhile Earthly allies managed to take a student run annual educational drive/demonstration. And then there was a procedural movement - a piece of paper put forward to fellow representatives by our elected officials - that sought to demean and silence these students. I think that is the biggest problem that I have with this whole thing.

My elected officials do not tell people what is 'okay to say'. Whatever problems someone has with the IAW need not be escalated to these levels. It is unfair targeting and an exercise in control that just should not happen. Whatever the students have to say, let the individual universities and colleges try to decide what their students have the opportunity to say. They usually lose when they try to enforce things that are too absurd, but for IAW I can see a lot bowing to pressure. A lot of really committed people see a huge problem with silencing dialogue on our country's continued support of Israeli polices. Really, saying that IAW is 'hate week 2010 anti-semitism carnival' is the best defence that anyone can give. These aren't hardened terrorists, these are post-secondary students. Anyone who comes out as a whacky anti-semite is firmly shut down. I've never heard one person say some stupid racist shit about their Jews or break out into fascist rheotric or violent 'islamist' speech. If a person had the spine and lack of brain to do that, they'd probably get their ass walloped. No one who promotes violence is going to be open about it, is going to be advertising there. So why did Cheri DiNovo support this? She shut down harmless people concerned with something that her branch of Legislative Exsistence does not even cover.

That's fucked.

To be honest, I find that some of the rhetoric I've encountered at the IAW was a little bit on the hyperbolic side, but whatever - no one is there to give a speech the way that I like 'em. But for all of those offputting individuals there are hordes more dedicated, interested, open minded indviduals that are...I don't even know a word that puts into strong enough words what these people feel about the unceasing, callous aggression of Israel - its long history of brutally oppressing the Palestinian people. From what I've learned of the situation - sure, Israeli society is more liberal blah, blah, blah - but by any stripe a lot of countries that are mildly socially tolerant for their time and context can be monstrous abusers of entire peoples. I really think that it is hard to separate these things. The Israeli right wing isn't bashful about their military operations and defend their state and government - the government that perpetuates horrific things. There are a lot of UN...post-it notes, I guess for what they're worth. These documents aren't biased and raving anti-semitism from Babi Serafina or Shannon "One-Eye" MacO'Reilston, they're high level diplomacy for the most part. They have investigations, reports, eye witness accounts. The record is pretty good. And no one who actually perpetuates these things will fundamentally deny these things. They are the ones that talk about building 'security fences' and installing 'zone of denial' weaponary. You don't have to say 'apartheid wall' or 'white phosphorous burns', because the people at the top may try to hide, but the paper trail is there. Nobody is making these atrocities up. It isn't anti-semetic to point out that the government of Israel and a lot of Zionist thinking is sincerely fucked. And yet Cheri Di Novo made the decision to stand up and defend this by denouncing her own political allies and attempting to curtail the freedom of speech. She may not be as bad as the people making the motions, and maybe she just really isn't too informed on the topic. I don't know, I can't see someone like CDN coming out in favour of government policies that closely resemble the 'a-word' in many ways. Because if you were to take two charts and write out the recent use of policy against a target people in Apartheid S. Africa and 'a-word' Israel, you will see a lot of similarities. So even if CDN doesn't think that Apartheid should be used as the word describe it, it doesn't matter. You don't stifle something because of the name, because it is never good democratic practise. And coming from a New Democrat I found that very disconcerting.

I'm not a constiuent of Cheri Di Novo and my whole hearted endorsement of the NDP is tenuous and ephemeral, but really, she made a bonehead move. I honestly just think that she had a tremendous lap in judgement and isn't a terrible person. That's Shurman and his ilk. The NDP has handled this poorly, to be honest. CDN has handled this poorly. And I don't know why people are so surprised with the whackjobs. That's messed up but people deal with it all the time. For the most part the frequency of vitrolic bullshit is the scum byproduct of internet culture, but I am more than happy to let these things be investigated before I make any judgements.

Now, uh, I guess the ball for how to clean up this mess is left with are some soon to be really tired NDP workers, the caucus...and I really do hope that Cheri can make up for this blunder. But the hell if I'm not going to think that CDN made a really, really poorly executed series of gaffes and mistakes and bizarre decisions.

edit: now the wordmaker in my skull hurts.

I find it incredibly ironic and sad that the "oh poor Cheri" crowd are asking for this discussion to be halted.

Maybe she was confusing Passover with Purim, Unioinist.

By the end of the party...

This is an issue in which there will be people on both sides who go over the top and act inappropriately. I certainly know a lot of pro-Palesitinian activists, Jewish pro-Palestinian activists in particular, who have been on the receiving end of harassing phone calls at 3 am, threats etc. I would be surprised if Libby Davies hasn't gotten a number of menacing and hateful phone calls and emails from Israel supporters as a result of her vote agains the federal anti-IAW resolution.

Yeah, aka M, maybe I should dig up hate letters we got (I and a few other Jews) in the 1970s, God how time flies, one of them with a crude drawing of people (us) at the business end of a sword, after visiting a university campus and organizing a panel discussion on "Zionism is racism" (which was then the official position of the UN General Assembly, until it was retracted years later). I can't imagine what kind of delirium or misplaced sense of self-importance would have possessed any of us to "go public" with run-of-the-mill stuff like this. And I don't know too many union reps that haven't been treated to threats on occasion. Honestly, her attempt to deflect criticism by portraying herself as a victim (whether she got the threats or not) was so typically the tactic that Israel and its supporters use that I had to take some déjà vu medication after reading those FB exchanges.

i have not posted to the last 95 threads on this :-)

i do not know if CDN has recieved threats or not. But no women who states that she has been subject to death threats, threatening phonecalls or harrasment should need to be in fear.

i do not care if the women is someone i like, someone i dislike, someone i would vote for or someone i would vote against.

in 2010 very simply no women should live in fear. and if CDN or any other women states that she is in fear that is good enough for me.

Where did I put those déjà vu pills...

I'm a self-hating Jew, and I hate myself for being one.

I just thought that this one was well-worth repeating - and that it might help put things back on track.

Fuck off troll.

Everytime we ban someone like our new friend, we seem intolerant.

@ Stargazer: Did you just say "dude"? Thanks for updating you're status to "really pissed". I needed the heads up. You're hipmeter is off the charts. I'm an equal opportunity hater of all drivel, especially hateful drivel, and you're keeping me too busy to go anywhere else.

Dude, I'm a Socialist!  

Now don't feed the troll (the one contravening babble policy). Caissa, you're right. babble is not intolerant, it has tremendous latitude for its lackeys (yes, like Stargazer), just no so much forgiveness in terms of difference of opinion.

You shouldn't speak of Unionist that way. He's been around here a long time and has earned the right.

So synthome is accused of immaturity and he retaliates by saying "I know he is, but what am I?" 

Brilliant.

You know what FM, all that is smearing fucking bull shit, I have condemned CDN about her actions,  and have even stated her office should be picketed it over it. What I am in disagreement with is the ugly nature of actions towards her, and now myself,  for having the audacity to say stop fucking attacking her personally and blamming the victim in respect to her assertations of death threats etc.

And your calls of partisanship on my part are pathetic small minded musings. As your actions and others in this thread and previous ones actually give great credibility to the type of attacks CDN was getting at home. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to see where some privileged fuck wit thinks they can be hyprocrits and level threats against her.

Just look what I am getting here because I have stated stick to the issues of her political actions in respect to IAW, and stop blamming the victim and calling her a liar.

really, I could get real nasty with you, but there is no need, your words and actions exhibit who and what you are.

And heads up I do not belong to the NDP, especially NOT the ONNDP. But I do know the difference between taking exception to  stalking harassing and bullying and partisanship actions.

You know, I could see all this fucking hate spewing on the part of yourself and others, if I had agreed with CDN in the least, but I haven't. Just my standing up for better behaviour has made me the target of hate nonsense such as yours.

And again I will state; where is this type of hate spewing against catchfire and Lou Arab, who also called for it to stop?

Oh, so you like to bait and troll? Wow, so cool of you! I was already pissed but now that you're here, I'm in a great mood! I get to watch yet another desperate troll self- destruct. What can be more fun? Oh right, I'm talking about you. I guess your idea of fun is to reincarnate yourself every time you are banned. Wow, you're a real tropper huh?Doing good working for leftish causes? Don't know how you keep up with all your online personalities though. Do you charge for performances? I'll give you 5 dollars if you do a back flip while reciting bible passages. Your turn.

That's right - I'm a "hipster" and you sir, and a misguided silly wee man.

Oh Dear.  This person truely has a pathological fixation.  Such people feed on attention, not caring if it's positive or negative, and are best utterly ignored.

Synthome aka Derrida aka spurs hasn't got over Dr. Dawg's effusive praise of his vicious attack on babble:

Our troll is just obeying orders.