In support of Mable Elmore

Again, where is the open naming and criticism of the CJC et al,  and why are they not taking them to task for putting both Mable Elmore and Carole James in this position? Tis interesting that the blame is being placed on Ms James solely, with only aside criticisms for the "myopic press corp", and "those interests that do not want to see open discussion..." which is disengenuous side stepping  and minimizing who the real culprits are in this equation, in its own right.

An additional game is being played here, as far as I can see, and it ain't pretty, nor honourable.

I think what all of these incidents show is that we are less and less likely to have people committed to unwavering principles step forward into public service via politics. The lack of  true principled leadership in politics and the MSM/political party drubbing people receive is a disgrace and the complete lack of courage on display from party officials does not bode well for the future. Regardless of one's beliefs we see this on all sides. If one does not speak solely from the waffly mushy middle devoid of any statement except those which supposedly line up with polling results...one is castigated. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but it seems like there are non-stop examples of people being thrown under the bus.

But yet, they are not making demands of the "media' nor the CJC et al?

yes, deflect away from a righteous question unionist, I really want to know why no blame is being placed on the primary purveyors of this action, the canwest global outfits and the CJC et al?

Have false conceptual frameworks been so successfully planted, that people cannot see/state who is at primary fault in this deceitful action?

The rhetoric above is so ridiculously over the top that I laughed aloud when I read it. It sounds almost like a comedian doing an satirical impersonation of a "loony-left" crackpot. Maybe someone should approach Hana Kawas about being a regular on Rick Mercer's show.

Remind, if Carole James had said:

"I support my candidate. She said nothing wrong. Here is what her words meant, for anyone that doesn't understand... And by the way, I reject those few in the media and certain organizations who are trying to distort Mable's words and defame her and, by implication, our party",

then this discussion would never be taking place.

Why didn't Carole James say that? Because she agrees with the CJC, and was "angry" and found Mable's words "offensive". That's what she said.

Let me try again: Why didn't Carole James say what I quoted above? Or something similar?

Remind, on this one I agree with Unionist as well.  I don't think the issue alone warrants calls for James' head, however.  I'll judge her on what the NDP government does over the next four years.

That only shows that a lot of Jews immigrated to Israel and as a result the Jewish proportion of the population has grown - but if you think that Zionism means that there must be an "EXCLUSIVELY Jewish state in Israel/Palestine that would suggest that successive Israeli governments have betrayed Zionism by allowing a single solitary non-Jew to live there.

So, around the merry go round we continue to go.

Again, I am not disagreeing with unionist, I have stated over and over, I believe what James said was wrong, and I have written 2 letters stating such to her and the BCNDP. I am stating that too much blame is being placed on James, who is also the victim here, of the CJC et al group and Canwest Global. And that the blame needs to be shared with them as well, in a broader public manner.

That James did not place the blame squarely where it should be, and state why, does not mean others have an excuse to do the same James, and blame her for her lacks, while doing the same damn thing she did. Allow Canwest and the CJC et al, to go unchallenged and uncorrected in the broader public venue.

"Is there any possibility that not every thread gets hijacked by an asinine debate on the definition of Zionism?"

Its not "hijacking" the thread to provide an argument that misuse of the word "zionism" CAN be offensive - and that Carol James did the right thing in asking her candidate to apologize for how her use of the word can be viewed.

I'm sorry if your idea of a thread that has NOT been "hijacked" is one where you get to pontificate and everyone else is only allowed to say "Amen". I believe that the purpose of these threads is to debate and exchange ideas.

"Only shows" is an unfortunate choice of words; millions of Palestinians live in permanent limbo because they or their families fled fighting in what was once Palestine.  They have been stripped of their "right to return" to paraphrase a piece of israeli law that applies only to Jews, in some cases to land their families occupied for centuries. The shift in proportions is largely related to immigration of Jews, but also to the expulsion and continued exclusion of Palestinians.  The justification offered for this is purely about the dilution of Jewishness that would ensue if these people were allowed the same Right of Return permitted to Jews of the world who in some cases have no ancestral connection to the land of Israel whatsoever.

The current Prime Minsiter of Israel has indicated that any peace agreement must include not only recognition of Israel's right to exist, but its right to exist as a Jewish state. According to JTA, which bills itself as the Global News Agency of the Jewish People, "A statement issued Monday from the Prime Minister's Office said that without that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu believes "it will not be possible to advance the diplomatic process and reach a peace settlement. However, the prime minister has never set this as a pre-condition for the opening of negotiations and dialogue with the Palestinians."" Not terribly reassuring, it seems to me. 

It is extremely difficult to criticize Israel in this country, even for very well-documented abuses or behaviour that would bring condemnation down on pretty much anybody else. The enormous success Zionists have enjoyed in equating their ideology with Jewishness in the public eye has everything to do with it.  But Zionism is just an ideology, and as such should be a legitimate topic of discussion, especially in light of the intractability of the Middle East mess. And israel is just a country, not a divenly informed infallible construct above politics. Ms. Elmore's supposed crime was speaking of Zionism and Israel as if they were not above criticism.  That's just wrong.

Except that if you think that the use of the word "Zionist" as a term of derision is offensive - then there is nothing spineless at all about what Carol James did. On the contrary she showed great skill in handling the situation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people criticizing the policies of the current Israeli government. In fact I heartily encourage people to do so because I think Netanyahu is a thug. Israel is not, nor should ever be - above criticism. But when you slam "Zionism", you are no longer attacking policies, you are implying that Israel as a country should not exist at all - and a non-starter and it just shuts down all discussion.

That's why we have forums like babble and threads like this - so we can debate and agree to disagree if we have to.

Unionist, they did not take exception to CJC et al, nor Canwest Global, they took exception to unspecified organziations and individuals, and they did not do it in a broader public venue, they only said it to Ms James, in a condemnation of her actions framework.

Moreover, silly or pointless, or not, a condemnation  by the  Independant Concerned Jewish voices should have been sent to  Canwest and the CJC et al, too, in addition to the one sent to Ms James.  They are the ones who conflated "your people"  with Israel, with Zionism, with aggression to Ms James and to the greater public of BC in the first place.

Otherwise, the conclusion is correctly reached, that Canwest and the CJC et al got away with their  attacking actions, again, without censor. As  without censorship of them too, Ms James is left holding the bag, and not a drop of conflation shit has landed on those who created this action against democracy in the first place, as such they can do it again and again and again, until someone finally and repeatedly says no more.

Do you not see, I take the actions of Canwest Global, and the CJC et al as a vicious attack against "all people", equally as much, as you see Jame's failure to stand up to them, as an attack against "your people". And perhaps their attack is worse than Jame's, at least hers is not based upon maliciius intent and was not knowingly done.

I'm actually tired of explaining to you, remind, that James didn't "fail to stand up to them" - she joined them in attacking her own candidate and Jews into the bargain. And what do you mean, it was "not knowingly done"??? Are you suggesting Carole James really thinks that calling someone a "Zionist" is an anti-semitic comment? That she is stupid??? I at least gave her credit for knowing the difference, and just deciding to pander. If she actually doesn't understand this issue, then the NDP is in worse shape than I thought.

Anyway, when she received the letter from the IJV, she could have given her head a shake. She could have retracted her comments, if they were indeed based on "not knowing" and no malicious intent. She could have clarified. She could have written privately to the IJV and apologized, if she didn't want to make a big splash. She did SFA. So even if you can explain her initial act by well-meaning ignorance (which is a stretch), how do you explain her silence in the face of IJV, O'Keefe, Shniad, Kawas, etc. over the past month?

She has taken a stand and is sticking to it. I see no other explanation. But I'm sure that with more letters like yours, and people speaking out, she can be made to see the error of her ways.

Ah Stock, if I even imagined that you were being serious and not provocative, I'd probably answer your post! Whatta kidder, heh.

That is so offensive and ugly. Please retract it.

Switzerland did not evict any indigenous populations to form its state, nor does it exercise sovereign power over any place other than its own recognized territory. Indeed it is a federation of indigenous peoples who have resisted incorporation into neighbouring larger states. There is a part of Switzerland which is indigenously Italian-speaking and its people enjoy the same rights as any other Swiss citizens. This does not imply any right of someone from Italy to Swiss citizenship, any more than someone from the US has a right to Canadian citizenship.

Nobody has the inherent right to immigrate to or take citizenship in any sovereign state other than that of their origin, and Switzerland has the right to set its own terms as to how and when citizenship is granted to non-indigenous residents, like any other sovereign state. Switzerland's policies on immigration and citizenship are restrictive but they are not exclusionary on the basis of religion.

This is not meant as an apologia for Switzerland, just to say that any comparison to Israel is ridiculous.

This is an odd argument in the context of the laws concerning Israeli citizenship and right of return.  If Israeli law conformed with international norms, someone whose ancestors converted to the Jewish faith in the years since the diaspora would not automatically qualify for citizenship, and Palestinians who had fled their homes in 1948 to escape the depredations of the Irgun and various other Zionist (and they were avowedly Zionist) terrorist groups would. As it stands, a person with no historical ethnic or ancestral tie to Israel qualifies for automatic ciotizenship while a Palestinian whose family occupied the same plot of land on what is now Israeli territory for a thousand years but fled the killing in the 1940s has none. There is no international legal or moral principle that justifies this.

This thread may be about Carol James' response to this matter, and her treatment of Ms. Elmore, but context matters.  The fact remains that this subject is taboo in the mainstream news media and society at large.  Anyone who raises their head above the terrain on this one is an immediate target. I don't like Ms. James' comments, and I don't think she really needed to make them. It is unrealistic, on the other hand, to suppose that anyone who told the unvarnished truth on this subject in the context of an election campaign would not be torn to shreds in the news media frenzy that ensued, or that their views would be covered in a manner that promoted meaningful discussion. If Canwest went after a local candidate over obscure remarks of this nature, it doesn't take much effort to imagine what the response would be to the leader attempting to explain them in the full glare of the TV lights.

I think this is inaccurate.  Unionist is drawing attention to the request for non-Zionist Jews to denounce the CJC, as if they somehow have a greater obligation than anyone else to do so simply because they're Jewish.

This doesn't mean that Unionist can only see the damage done to "his people" while you see damage done to "all people".  That remark is out of line.

Again, I did not say they had a greater obligation, I said if the IJV were going to write a public letter chastizing Carole James,  then IMV they should also acknowlege the others culprits in this too, as she is not the only one, but she is the only one taking the blame. Unionist's only point against this observation of mine was that there would be no point,. While I  believe there is and stated such. In no way did I place a burden of sole responsibility upon the IJV.

Again, in my view, I am being misconstrued. He only spoke of damage to a specfic demographic, and I was adding another demographic, whom I did not believe that he saw as being damaged in the attack by the CJC et al, by way of their instigating  actions,  even though we/they are damaged equally as much, as the sole demographic unionist noted. Perhaps he does see everyone as being damaged too in the CJC et al's attack, however that was not clearly conveyed by his wording.

However, point taken, I will be more careful in my wording, in an effort to cut down on misconstructions of my wording.

Yeah, I was just thinking that was maybe the only real good piece of news in this election.  It looks like the NDP partisans on here who thought Elmore was going to lose them a seat got it very wrong.  Hopefully, Elmore and the progressive wing of the NDP get a little more respect in the party instead of just grandstanding rightwingers like Farnworth.

Nice to see. Thanks Mable.

Mable will be gunning for Carole James, and rightfully so. You go girl! 

Exactly who constitutes the "Zionist establishment"?

Oh, yeah, I'm glad she won.

Zionist is such a nice word Unionist. Glad you like using it.

I hope I didn't make that prediction.

Lol! Are you suggesting that James's cowardice, capitulation to Zionist warmongering and volunteer public shaming of her own candidate was actually part of an insidious strategy to help a lowly socialist win her seat? Where should Elmore send the thank-you card?

Never said that at all, I am saying Elmore got more exposure than she would have otherwise, and indeed perhaps more support for her position consolidated around her than would have otherwise.

What are you talking about? James won her seat. It was the very mealy mouthed Green Party leader who failed to win her own riding after telling British Columbians that the Greens and corporate-friendly Liberals have more in common than they do with the NDP. Tories with composters and Tory wannabes are a bad mix

So now that youve got it straight, which party did you think had the best platform?

Youre confused again. Provincial politics in BC have absolutely nothing to do with Ottawa's vicious toadying to the USSA or its client state of Israel, and it's because that is a federal matter. I find those who consistently neglect to mention CUSFTA-NAFTA or which parties dealt those agreements to Canadians are often confused about federal-provincial jurisdictions and devolution of powers since the very neoliberal 1990's. And you were paying way too much attention to a non-issue surrounding what Mable Elmore said half a decade ago and blown way out of proportion by B'nai Brithers and CJC. I dont know if those people happen to the Liberal Party supporters or not. I suspect they arent NDP.

Otoh, Campbell's Liberals have signed TILMA trade agreement with their conservative cousins in Alberta.

And Dalton McGuilty has spoken favourably of the Liberal-Tory interprovincial agreement for TILMA. And youre suggesting that Liberals in BC have no intention to undermine Mike Harcourt's anti-scab legislation in British Columbia? Because that would be interesting, if indeed that's what youre avoiding to tell us.

Youre a bullshit artist, that's what I think. This election was not decided by the CJC and B'nai Brith's political interference in BC politics.

Because opinion polls before the last federal election did not favour phony war in Afghanistan. And yet the Tories still won an exaggerated minority government with the pro-war Liberals forming the phony opposition party. Why is this true if Ottawa's vicious toadying to American empire and its client states is a key election issue for voters?

I plan to carry on, Michelle, without any personal attacks against any babblers. And I do intend to carry on making insulting remarks about Carole James - until she apologizes to Elmore, the public, and the Jewish community for connecting anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

I'm sure you'll let me know when I'm out of line.

I think you'd certainly like to believe that this non-issue submarined the NDP's election chances in BC. That's what I think.

And Happy TILMA to you and all those probable future replacement workers in BC and Alberta, too.

Unionist, what the hell are you doing quoting me out of context and trying to smear me by doing so?

Right from the very first thread on this I was on Elmore's side, but of course you skipped right past that didn't you!

And frankly, it is getting to the point that I believe all the attacks here against James are because she is Metis, and her husband is full blood Carrier First Nations.

The vitriolic made up BS, like James "browbeat" Elmore make no sense otherwise. Moreover, if Elmore is as you depicted her; courageous strong yadda yadda, no one would have been able to browbeat nor humiliate her. Thus you have actually depicted Elmore as a weak push over, doing anything to keep her candidate status, even though of course she isn't, you just wanted to use over the top rhetoric in order to bash James, thinking no one would point out your inconsistent smearing and exploitation of a woman of colour to do so.

It seriously  appears to piss off some people that James, a First Nations woman, brought the BCNDP back from the destructed party that some  people quite apparently wanted it to be. And she indeed has caused its continued growth, from 2 seats, to 36, but I guess some wouldn't want uppity women, especiially a FN one to be a powerful role model, they must tear them apart falsely. And indeed defame those whom they are exploiting to do so, too. As if I was Elmore, I would be seriously pissed that someone, especially a white male, was using me, to defame another woman of colour, while depicting me as weak, browbeaten and humliated, to do so.

No  there is no desperation here, just an observation of vile comments against a First Nations woman,  who had the audacity to bring back the BCNDP from the edge of a planned extinction, just like what is being attempted now actually.

And I ask again, what were you doing taking my comments from another thread out of context, in order to try and smear me, as if I was not on Elmore's side from the begining?

And why are you obliquely trying to portray Elmore as weak willed, and willing to do anything, even apologize when she should not have had to, supposedly in order to keep her candidate stature? As that is what you are doing. As well as exploiting her to attack James.

I respect you and I know you don't just make things up. That's why I assume you just plain and simply forgot how I defended Elmore against the charge that she was weak and had caved in to James's brutality:

Courage vs. cowardice. It's as plain as night and day.

Hear-hear! It's blowback against the enemies of democracy in BC is what it was. [7-Up UnCola man on]Uh ...HA HA HA HAAA![/]