babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Ongoing battle around IAW, and using, or not using, the A word to describe Israel's actions in ON
March 17, 2010 - 1:42pm
contined from here
and yes, I have changed the thread title, as unionist took it upon himself to change the thread title when he continued it, to transmitt the message he wanted.
That's pretty catchy. :D
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?
Where to start and what to address in this continued smearing of CDN.
Not going to waste much time, not worth it, other than to say...
there was nothing planned in the FB exgange on CDN's part at least, that I could see, as you yourself noted she was not in control.
What I saw and have read right from the beginning on this is, so called "freinds" stalking and repeatedly smearing her.
Making 1 comment is valid, or even 2, publically to her in her space, and/or going to her constituent office to speak with her, but beyond that, just like making repeated phone calls /or visits to someone you are in a fight with, it is stalking and harassment.
Indeed visits to her office should occur, and should have occured, as truthfully complaints over her actions should have really been made there, about something so important, don't you think? Then indeed, if answers to questions and actions were not approved of, picketing of her office could have and should have happened.
Would have got more media on the protestors side, eh! plus it would be a more fitting action that bullying, harassment and stalking.
In truth it appears to be a case of purposefully trying to destroy CDN, because truthfully these attacks are not taking exception, appropriately, of her words and actions. Thus it is my view they are merely an attempt to destroy her, or get her to quit politics, as opposed to any belief in what they say she transgressed in.
Wonder who wants to run in CDN's riding for the ONDP?
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...
To be clear, Michelle, I never said there shouldn't be a backlash. DiNovo should be criticized, and severely, for her thoughtless and hypocritical actions on facebook, and of course, for her support of Shurman's bill. I merely said that it seemed people were piling up on a female politician disproportionately. I'm also not alone in that thought. I suggested that it might be time to move on to bigger, more relevant, and more effective projects. Some here disagree and would like to continue to pile on DiNovo until she crumbles. Fill your boots, I say.
For the record, I think your comments on the matter, Michelle, have been resepctable, well weighed, and principled.
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.
"the A word" is actually longer than "apartheid". Check it out:
the A word
apartheid
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"?
Why not call it Palestinian Human Rights Week? Whatever legitimate points the IAW organizers are trying to make are undermined. A lot of Jews, even if they're not "Zionist" feel singled out by such a title, and many are open to hearing criticism of Israeli policy if it isn't framed in such a knee-jerk, demonizing manner.
I disagree strongly with Shurman's bill, however. Horwath took a good stance. Criticizing one's use of words is part of the free debate. Attempting to shut it down is wrong.
I think it is fair to say DiNovo did not anticipate the response she has received.
No I was going to put "using or not using the aparthied word" and then decided to make a play on the whole damn thing and shorten the title, at the same time..
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?
From the previous thread
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.
Speak for yourself. I'm not included in the "I hate unionist camp".
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?
I thought I was, but the next time I am going to express my opinion I will get your okay first to make sure I am allowed to hold such an opinion. Oh the irony of the comments of some posters.
back at ya!
I think stargazer was responding to your use of the pronoun "we."
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.
St. Paul's Progressive wrote:
Why not call it Palestinian Human Rights Week? Whatever legitimate points the IAW organizers are trying to make are undermined.
I don't know, that might be a little bit strong. What do you think of Keystone's idea from a previous thread, calling it, "Israel isn't being very nice week" or, if that's even a bit strong, we could call it, "Israel might possibly be a teensy bit wrong about some things, maybe Week"?
Or maybe just "Palestinians are cool" week. How about that?
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".
Caissa would be correct. Thanks Caissa.
You're welcome, Stargazer.
I was looking forward to the pro-DiNovo thread.
Me too! Ha, now that would have been heated.
I have no doubt that she does have progressive leanings, and has worked tirelessly on many issues. She just failed on this one.
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.
Well, he did say this:
Michelle if your characterization of the comments are correct, the inclusion of 'she's an adult and a public figure. She can handle it.' are unnecessary and cruel.
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.
I detect a lot of hostility towards unionist. Why not just address him directly Lou? I knew what he meant, because I know his posting style and I know he isn't a mean or spiteful person. I think Michelle also knows this. Unionist cleared it up already. So why bother poking him with a stick some more?
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.