NDP leadership #101
Comments
There are four NDP MPs of Arabic origin. Sadia Groguhe, Djaouida Sellh, Sana Hassainia and Tarik Brahim.
I am hesitant to generalize about them. I don't know whether they are Moslem or not or what views they might have on the Palestine issue. But all four have endorsed Mulcair from his first day in the race.
It does strike me that their endorsements may be somewhat inconsistent with the allegation that Mulcair is some kind of arch-Zionist.
Anyone care to comment?
"Moslem", Team Mulcair?
Seriously?
Transliterations can usually be spelled any number of ways. For instance, in Arabic, the names Mahmoud and Mohammed have the same spelling: Mim-Ha-Mim-Dal. Since the diacritics indicating vowel sound are not typically included, different dialects will have different pronunciations. To my mind, it is not really significant that someone would use "Moslem" versus "Muslim"; they are equivalent, however archaic and British one of the two might be.
But to be fair, I am not that advanced in my Arabic language studies! :)
Transliterations can usually be spelled any number of ways. For instance, in Arabic, the names Mahmoud and Mohammed have the same spelling: Mim-Ha-Mim-Dal. Since the diacritics indicating vowel sound are not typically included, different dialects will have different pronunciations. To my mind, it is not really significant that someone would use "Moslem" versus "Muslim"; they are equivalent, however archaic and British one of the two might be.
But to be fair, I am not that advanced in my Arabic language studies! :)
Oh, okay.
I'm more inclined to believe it's a typo from someone talking about a people for whom she really doesn't give a shit.
Winston wrote:Transliterations can usually be spelled any number of ways. For instance, in Arabic, the names Mahmoud and Mohammed have the same spelling: Mim-Ha-Mim-Dal. Since the diacritics indicating vowel sound are not typically included, different dialects will have different pronunciations. To my mind, it is not really significant that someone would use "Moslem" versus "Muslim"; they are equivalent, however archaic and British one of the two might be.
But to be fair, I am not that advanced in my Arabic language studies! :)
Oh, okay.
I'm more inclined to believe it's a typo from someone talking about a people for whom she really doesn't give a shit.
You're also wrong. Muslim or Moslem is spelled in Arabic as Mim-Sin-Lam-Mim: مسلم
You will notice no vowels (only long vowels exist in Arabic, short vowels may be indicated by placing diacritics on top of the consonants). The diacritic "damma" (the diacritic on the Mim) is transiliterated in English as BOTH an "O" AND a "U". The "kasra" on the Lam is transliterated as short "E", short "I" and even sometimes the "ae" sound.
According to Webster's New World Dictionary, EITHER spelling, "Muslim" or "Moslem" is correct.
Incidentally, the transliteration, "Moslem" is phonetically more similar to the CORRECT Arabic pronunciation.
Perhaps you might want to learn a little bit yourself before bandying about accusations that people "don't give a shit" about other people and cultures. If I am not mistaken, "Glennie" is not a Moslem name.
Thanks for your more measured tone Unionist but I am afraid I still don't get it or if in fact there is anything to get.
I have tried to find out more about the four MPs I mentioned. They all seem to be highly educated individuals. You might call it stereotying but I would expect that the average highly intelligent politician of Arab descent would have a significant degree of awareness of the Palestinian issue. Just as would a Jew in the the same position.
Yet all four of them back Mulcair. I surmise from this that they might not share your view of his supposed perfidy on the Palestinian issue.
What I wanted to find out by my question is why you think that is? Are they out of step with Arab-Canadian opinion? Do they just not understand the issue as well as you? Do other matters predominte in their leadership choice?
If there was only one of them I would not raise the matterr. But it got my attantion that every Arab-Canadian MP in the party, if not Parliamnet , is backing Mulcair.
As Sherlock Holmes observed, "...while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty."
And Brian Glennie, you will note that I am not a good typist and my posts are replete with spelling errors and typos.
Thanks for your more measured tone Unionist but I am afraid I still don't get it or if in fact there is anything to get.
I have tried to find out more about the four MPs I mentioned. They all seem to be highly educated individuals. You might call it stereotying but I would expect that the average highly intelligent politician of Arab descent would have a significant degree of awareness of the Palestinian issue. Just as would a Jew in the the same position.
Yet all four of them back Mulcair. I surmise from this that they might not share your view of his supposed perfidy on the Palestinian issue.
What I wanted to find out by my question is why you think that is? Are they out of step with Arab-Canadian opinion? Do they just not understand the issue as well as you? Do other matters predominte in their leadership choice?
If there was only one of them I would not raise the matterr. But it got my attantion that every Arab-Canadian MP in the party, if not Parliamnet , is backing Mulcair.
As Sherlock Holmes observed, "...while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty."
And Brian Glennie, you will note that I am not a good typist and my posts are replete with spelling errors and typos.
Nicky, you are connecting race and culture to political views in ways that stereotype. This isn't acceptable in the same way that bringing gender or sexual orientation into the politics of a person is unacceptable. I suggest that you do some thinking on this matter and that you do not bring racial, cultural or any other sterotypes into politicians' positions in this or any other babble thread.
I have thought about it Rebecca and your point still entirely escapes me.
It has been said here a number of times that no woman MP outside Quebec supports a particular candidate and we were asked to draw certain conclusions from that. You didn't intervene to criticize anyone then. I have simply said that all Arab-Candian MPs support one candidate and that is something to consider on a certain issue. Why is my comment offside and not the other one??
I have a question about the voting process.
I know that if I fill in my whole ballot (i.e. numbered 1-6) than my #1 choice counts for each ballot he or she is still contesting.
But if I wait and vote ballot by ballot, can I change my first vote in subsequent ballots, even if they have not yet dropped out?
You've got me really puzzled Lou.
I'm assuming [and do I also remember from 2003?] that when you vote real time you just make one choice for that ballot.
The way the people that preferential ranked feed in is that their highest choice still in the race is the ONE that counts for them on that ballot. In other words, tecnically they are the same as the real time ballot by ballot people.... its just that their [single] choice that goes into this ballot is determined in a different manner.
Do youor others think it is something different?
Kind of funny we're not sure about this.
Nicky, you are connecting race and culture to political views in ways that stereotype. This isn't acceptable in the same way that bringing gender or sexual orientation into the politics of a person is unacceptable. I suggest that you do some thinking on this matter and that you do not bring racial, cultural or any other sterotypes into politicians' positions in this or any other babble thread.
I'm just an old white guy who lurks most of the time, so I never have trouble with the rules, but I am genuinely interested in the meaning of this statement. Does it mean:
1. Race and culture are empirically known to be unrelated to political views, and therefore any suggestion of such a relationship is merely hate speech?
or
2. There may be a real relationship between culture and political views, but it is too inflammatory to be discussed on babble and is therefore forbidden?
or
3. Something else I haven't thought of?
I have thought about it Rebecca and your point still entirely escapes me.
It has been said here a number of times that no woman MP outside Quebec supports a particular candidate and we were asked to draw certain conclusions from that. You didn't intervene to criticize anyone then. I have simply said that all Arab-Candian MPs support one candidate and that is something to consider on a certain issue. Why is my comment offside and not the other one??
#3
You can rule out #2. Mostly just not logical,
#1 is hopelessly reuctionist. [ ? And maybe the problem with #2 is just an extreme form of reductionism.]
Which is not to say even implicitly my opinion of what the moderator said. I am only addressing your offering.
Let me put this as plainly as possible. Making assumptions about who supports whom based a stereotype of how the person's race or ethnicity should affect who they support is still employing a stereotype to make a point. Not cool.
It has been said here a number of times that no woman MP outside Quebec supports a particular candidate and we were asked to draw certain conclusions from that.
I wasn't aware that this has occured. Provide me with examples so that I have some kind of context and I'll offer an opinion on it.
And might I remind you that Catchfire and I are two people moderating what amounts to hundreds of threads over any given time, not to mention curating and moderating live babble events and writing for rabble.ca. It is not physically possible for us to be aware of all activity at all times and then to moderate with 100% consistency. To expect otherwise is completely unreasonable.
Just so I am clear it is not acceptable on Babble to suggest:
1. Fundamentalist Christians tend to support the Conservatives?
2. Blacks in the USA tend to vote for the Democrats?
3. Jews in France might not vote for the National Front?
4. There is any gender gap reflected in support for different parties?
And no, I am not going to blow a whistle on who made the comment about women MPs. I never thought it should concern the moderators in the first place even if I din't care care much for it.
I have thought about it Rebecca and your point still entirely escapes me.
It has been said here a number of times that no woman MP outside Quebec supports a particular candidate and we were asked to draw certain conclusions from that. You didn't intervene to criticize anyone then. I have simply said that all Arab-Candian MPs support one candidate and that is something to consider on a certain issue. Why is my comment offside and not the other one??
For what its worth, I think the points you are raising are pertinent and relevant to the "discussion" you were having and I disagree that they comprise "ethnic or cultural" stereotyping as alleged by another person posting on the board.
nicky, I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not. So: let me offer this last explanation, and if you still don't "understand," just take the approach that the next time you approach this question, do it with the understanding that you don't quite get it, and approach with caution.
There is a difference between making observations between empirically observable results of an identifiable group (i.e. the fact that women, as a group, in Canada tend to vote conservative, or that African-Americans, as a group, tend to vote Democrat), and the speculation of an individual based on which groups you assume they identify with.
To be specific, your deeply offensive post upthread did a couple of things: first, it very casually linked race to a political view ("arabic" is a language, not a people, incidentally. And "Moslem" is generally thought to be an archaic usage) based on no evidence, and second, crassly used this stereotyping to validate Mulcair's views on Israel. This is a "most of my best friends are black" argument.
It's not "hate speech," which inidicts the speaker; it's speech rooted in racist stereotypes and instrumentalization. This is also not an argument. It's an explanation. If you need more "clarification," feel free to PM one of the mods. But no more of this mealy-mouthed Columbo impression.
Nicky's right. This kind of kneejerk moderation is one of the reasons I left Babble. I guess if the job of moderating politics forums is over the heads of the current moderators, they need to find new ones, because a lot of electoral politics is about finding just those kinds of patterns.
Welcome back, Oo!
ETA. In all seriousness, I think it's a shame you're so hostile to us, Oo, because I'm sure we would get along in real life. It's a pity you've left babble of course, because you have so much to contribute to these conversations, as you know. I think if we chatted face to face you might realize that these things that we have to say isn't so much hot air. And it might also curb you from saying how much you despise us/wish we were fired with every second utterance.
I was checking out Jack Layton's book Speaking Out Louder. It says some good things about most of the candidates, but, given that it was written in 2006, it doesn't mention the NDP newbies in this race. So, those mentioned are: Cullen, Dewar, Nash, and Topp. Praise all around, though high praise especially was given to both Topp and Angus (who's kind of co-running with Dewar): Angus for being a "tireless MP" in his pursuit of justice for First Nations, and Topp for "capable direction and co-chairing [with Sue Milling] .. the best of the best for our election planning committee".
I have a question about the voting process.
I know that if I fill in my whole ballot (i.e. numbered 1-6) than my #1 choice counts for each ballot he or she is still contesting.
But if I wait and vote ballot by ballot, can I change my first vote in subsequent ballots, even if they have not yet dropped out?
I think it was more about changing the story after the Quebec debate, and at that it actually succeeded very well at least for a day or two. The media are not particularly hard to manipulate, not that it has changed any of the fundamental dynamics of the race.
You know what I find most amusing?
Some posters that promote people/societies who are gentle, kind, cooperative, consensus seeking are in reality(well at least on the internetz by their tone of writing here) the most angry, agressive, and have the greatest sense of self-machismo(that last one will get me in trouble huh)
Anyways, time to take out a last minute membership....
Ok, the target was Thomas Mulcair then. My mistake, I'm sorry. I didn't go back and read carefully enough. Thanks for the correction. (It was still a very hostile thing to say about him.)
But why do you need to ask me why I made the "allegation"? What other reason could there be, other than an honest mistake? Maybe you're used to being around very nasty people. That's unfortunate.
Couple of things
1) Topp's comment about Mulcair not being in the party long enough is absurd. If we took his standard, no QCer would be eligible in this leadership race. Nor would any QC provincial politicain be eligible in any future contest. That would close the door on a large # of potential candidates.
2) I've emailed Mulcair's campaign on several occasions and always received personal responses. I don't know what Dipper is talking about. Maybe email again from a different address or attend a Mulcair event in your area.
Well, because you relied upon a mistaken reading to make a rather broad statement about babble:
You see, no one called nicky racist. I pointed out that nicky's post, coyly asking how Mulcair could be an arch-Zionist when four Arabs endorsed him, was racist and stereotyping. I respect nicky and would never dream of applying such a label to her. But anyone can make a racist or stereotyping remark, and it is important that they be called out on it, or have it explained to them if they don't understand what they've said. You may disagree that the statement was stereotyping, and that's surely your right.
But your post is aimed at preventing people from pointing it out, for fear that no one will join discussions here. In that case, you have a duty to be diligent and accurate.
You've acknowledged that no one called anyone here "treacherous". That's against our policy, and it didn't happen. Thanks for the retraction.
But if you don't want accusatory terms applied to public figures, I can guarantee that you won't like the discussion here much.
No, that was not my aim. I encouraged people to point things out. I said in my post: "By all means, if we think someone has crossed a line (like stereotyping) let's raise the issue, but do so in a friendly way..." I'm not trying to prevent anyone from saying anything at all, in terms of the content of what they say. I'm just asking that the tone, the choice of words, remain friendly and generous.