This is by far the weakest of the hysterical Left's response to having IAW called into question.

There is no analysis (other than imputing this to part of a new-anti-semitism conspiracy). I understand that a zealous Left might feel outraged by a perceived betrayal by one of their long standing allies in the struggle for social justice, but to conflate the positions of Peter Shurman with that of NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo on the basis of a shared problematization of the use of the term apartheid is simply ludicrous. One need only to read Hansard to see how far apart their positions are. The irony of course that everyone missed is that DiNovo was putting into practice what she was calling us to do. The ethical starting point for dialogue, even, perhaps especially, in the face of your enemy must be compassion, grace, forgiveness, openness and honesty. A starting point in a dialogue is to acknowledge a common ground and work towards disagreement, controversy, pain, restitution. In her remarks, she unmistakably acknowledges the need to speak the truth about the occupation, about the need to have a two state solution. etc. This was not a denial of the atrocities in Gaza.

Calling into question whether the use of the term apartheid is the best way to work toward constructive dialogue is not censorship, this is not McCarthyism. It is disagreement. It is using free speech to attempt to keep speech open. 

There may well be good reasons to use the term apartheid, but I would argue the term is problematic for reasons beyond the charge that it is needlessly incendiary. I believe the term is monologic.  Speech remains free only as long as it remains circumscribed within the narrow semantic field of the term apartheid, which has a legal and geopolitical specificity. The term, in effect, intimidates the speaker and forecloses debate. And by erasing dialogue, one is left with only with monologue. The term alienates many, but I guess has the advantage to boosting morale amongst the converts.

So by all means use the term, but being challenged (from a position of never having any power to stop you from doing so) on your use of the term is not repression; it's debate. Defensive disproportionate derangement as a response to being challenged to defend your use of such an inflammatory term is the true assault on reasonable debate.

Lastly, this analysis begs the question as to why the Conservatives/ Liberals are pushing so hard on this. As others have pointed out, this is a perfect wedge with which to split the Left. And it worked swimmingly. Babble immediately launched a baseless feeding frenzy on one of its few allies at Queens Park. ONDP leadership capitulated to the outrage by throwing one of its MPP's under the bus. And for what, to appease a handful of privileged deranged Lefties who are most likely too pure in their politics to ever support the NDP in the first place.

Way to go Andrea. You threw one of your fellow caucus members (a sister in struggle with real social justice cred and one of the ONDP's safest seats) to the wolves and failed to grow your voter base at the same time. Not having DiNovo's back was an ethical failure; not projecting a coherent position as a party and capitulating to intimidation by rabid Leftists and a handful of Islamists was a political failure, especially for someone brought in to broaden the party base. In terms of politicking the move could be worth a handful of votes from the deranged Lefties who ordinarily either are too cool to vote or just go and spoil their ballot. However, mainstream swing voters will turn to the Liberals.

Moreover, I know if I were treated this way by my "Party" I would not run for them again. And the ONDP can forget about taking Parkdale High Park without DiNovo, with the possible exception of getting Peggy Nash (who doesn't seem remotely interested) to run. Thereby further consolidating McGuinty Liberal hegemony. Interesting to me that Liberal Michael Colle's totally over the top condemnation was passed over in complete silence around here.

_____________

I'm not sure what protocol is around editing comments, so I should add that my original comments were edited to correct some minor typos and to add the last couple of paragraphs.