Ontario MPPs - including NDP - condemn Israeli Apartheid Week in Legislature

109 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-02-25 18:39

Michelle

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/771524--mpps-unite-to-condemn...

[quote]

In a rare show of unanimity, Ontario MPPs of all political stripes have banded together to condemn “Israeli Apartheid Week.”

Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) tabled the motion Thursday to denounce the sixth annual provocative campus event that kicks off next week at universities and colleges in 35 cities around the world.

“Resolutions in the Ontario Legislature send a message. They are about moral suasion,” said Shurman, adding “it is close to hate speech” to liken democratic Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.

“I want the name changed, it’s just wrong,” he said, emphasizing that “respectful” debate about the Middle East is much more constructive than slinging slurs.

“Israeli Apartheid Week is not a dialogue, it’s a monologue and it is an imposition of a view by the name itself—the name is hateful, it is odious,” he said, adding it is also offensive to the millions of black South Africans oppressed by a racist white regime until the early 1990s.

New Democratic MPP Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park) said while the motion, which passed with a unanimous voice vote at 4 p.m., was “symbolic,” it sent a signal that parliamentarians want to promote positive debate.

“What we need to build peace … are not inflammatory words like ‘apartheid,’ particularly used inappropriately in the case of Israel,” said DiNovo, who was among the 30 MPPs in the 107-seat Legislature for the vote.
[/quote]

But she's just a-okay with Christian supremacy in the Legislature, isn't she? Fought tooth and nail to ensure that the Lord's Prayer continues to be said every day in the Legislature, while "lesser" religions have their prayers recited on a rotating basis afterwards.

Another example of how every time I think the ONDP are not so bad (e.g. running an amazing candidate like Cathy Crowe), they pull stupid shit like this.

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:12

Unionist

Stephen Harper will be happy. The Supreme Court said it couldn't interfere in foreign policy, but apparently the Ontario Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP are free to do so as long as they are attacking Canadians who expose Israeli crimes.

It is to be hoped that one day, all of them will face justice.

Michelle wrote:
But she's just a-okay with Christian supremacy in the Legislature, isn't she? Fought tooth and nail to ensure that the Lord's Prayer continues to be said every day in the Legislature, while "lesser" religions have their prayers recited on a rotating basis afterwards.

Well, as a minister of the United Church, it's only natural that DiNovo would stick up for Christianity and Israel. The other religions can elect their own MPPs to lobby for their own prayers.

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:24

Lou Arab

Oh boy.

Mayse, Oldgoat, this seems to be as good a time as ever to let you know I'm going skiing next week, so I won't be doing much moderating while I'm gone. :)

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:34

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

I don't agree with Dinovo that it's not apartheid. It is. She herself is giving away her biased opinion on the matter. How can there be the peace process she mentions with such a lopsided situation?

Thanks for that, Fidel.

I think, rather than discussing Middle East politics again, this thread could usefully treat the question of how a provincial assembly could unanimously condemn Canadians organizing for justice in the Middle East. Why would such a motion be entertained, and why would it receive all-party support?

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:35

Fidel

I don't agree with Dinovo that it's not apartheid. It is. She herself is giving away her biased opinion on the matter. How can there be the peace process she mentions when such a lopsided situation exists?

And I must say that although I disagree with Chomsky on recent 9/11 history and that I think it is a very important case against the global war on terror, I agree with Noam that an embargo of Israel would be futile. The Yanks are not ready to give up Israel as its premier frontline state in the Middle East. Not until such time as countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran in the near future are fully under US control and subserviant to US and British energy and geostrategic interests in this colder war period of US-led NATO military aggression around the world. And at that point, Israel would be thrown to the wolves and neglected once the empire is firmly established in Central Asia and other Middle Eastern countries after arming Israel's arch enemies as well as Israel to the eye teeth for many years. Giving attention to Israel would be like focussing on the bully's capos and lesser minions of doom when the bully's back is turned. There is only one way to deal with bullies, and that is to confront the bully directly.

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:42

genstrike

Fuck all of the other parties, and fuck the NDP.

This is something I've worked my ass off to bring to Winnipeg for the first time this year. The NDP will never get a dime or a minute of work from me ever again. It's perfectly clear that the NDP isn't and doesn't want to be a party of the left, or a party representing protest movements. They just want to shut us up.

These people don't recognize that the state of Israel is not a person, it is a political entity, and one can criticize it. Especially if it conforms to all the legal definitions of apartheid established in international law.

Cheri DiNovo doesn't get it. We call it apartheid because it is apartheid. So, we tell it like it is and try to build movements against apartheid like the BDS movement. We can't pretend that all we need to do is have some dialogue in toronto and have falafel with Zionists and there will magically be peace and justice. The conflict is driven not by irrational hatred, but by systems of Israeli apartheid need to be dismantled, that's the only thing that will do it.

Fuck, I'm so pissed off. If this shit happens in Manitoba...

I guess the one thing I can take satisfaction in is that when the movement grows and when the wall falls, history will absolve us. These days, even the bourgiest of bourgie liberals is against South African apartheid 15 years too late

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:47

Michelle

genstrike, just remember, this is the Ontario NDP. The federal NDP has some MPs who are excellent on this issue, like Libby Davies.

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:51

Michelle

I'm also hoping that the dismal turnout for the vote - 30 MPs altogether, and I'm not sure how many NDP, although apparently the leader, Andrea Horwath, was present for it - might mean that there were a few NDP MPs who didn't attend the vote because they didn't want to stab the many activists who work to shine a light on Israeli apartheid and who vote for them in the back like this.

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:52

Fidel

Apparently they are trying to prevent university groups from using campuses for their anti-Israeli political agendas? [drift] This seems to me to that this is a similar situation mentioned by Chomsky wrt 9/11 - that the 9/11 truth movement is a distraction from larger political issues and from where progressive people should be focussing their attentions, which according to Chomsky, should be directed toward activism against real crimes of the state. And for Chomsky, crimies of the state emanate from the source country enabling client states such as Israel and dozens more where basic human rights are trampled. And imo, South Africa is better today only in the sense that a racist apartheid regime is not still firmly in control of things in that country. According to Naomi Klein and others, S. Africans themselves are not better off economically under the neoliberal regime of things in Africa though. The neocolonialism has simply mutated, moved into surrounding African countries and murdering even more Africans at a frenzied pace today. The root source of the problem of neocolonialism still exists today in Africa with the same western countries that supported Pic Botha's South Africa during the cold war. Picking on Israel similarly will do nothing to abate the problem of neocolonialism and Anglo-American -sponsored oppression at its source.

Thu, 2010-02-25 19:57

#10

genstrike

Michelle wrote:
genstrike, just remember, this is the Ontario NDP. The federal NDP has some MPs who are excellent on this issue, like Libby Davies.

Well, out of the three NDP MPs in my city, there is one I don't know about and two which are loud Zionists on the CPCCA.

And the Manitoba NDP isn't that great on this issue either.

So, I would be stupid not to expect this to happen again in Manitoba.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:01

#11

genstrike

Michelle wrote:
I'm also hoping that the dismal turnout for the vote - 30 MPs altogether, and I'm not sure how many NDP, although apparently the leader, Andrea Horwath, was present for it - might mean that there were a few NDP MPs who didn't attend the vote because they didn't want to stab the many activists who work to shine a light on Israeli apartheid and who vote for them in the back like this.

I don't know, sticking up for your friends by not showing up? They could have just voted no.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:02

#12

genstrike

Fidel wrote:

Apparently they are trying to prevent university groups from using campuses for their anti-Israeli political agendas? [drift] This seems to me to that this is a similar situation mentioned by Chomsky wrt 9/11 - that the 9/11 truth movement is a distraction from larger political issues and from where progressive people should be focussing their attentions, which according to Chomsky, should be directed toward activism against real crimes of the state. And for Chomsky, crimies of the state emanate from the source country enabling client states such as Israel and dozens more where basic human rights are trampled. And imo, South Africa is better today only in the sense that a racist apartheid regime is not still firmly in control of things in that country. According to Naomi Klein and others, S. Africans themselves are not better off economically under the neoliberal regime of things in Africa though. The neocolonialism has simply mutated, moved into surrounding African countries and murdering even more Africans at a frenzied pace today. The root source of the problem of neocolonialism still exists today in Africa with the same western countries that supported Pic Botha's South Africa during the cold war. Picking on Israel similarly will do nothing to abate the problem of neocolonialism and Anglo-American -sponsored oppression at its source.

Are you seriously trying to compare IAW organizers to 9/11 truth nutters?

Are you seriously trying to defend the NDP's vote in favour of this motion, based on Chomsky and Naomi Klein who spoke at last year's IAW?

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:07

#13

Michelle

I know. Unless the vote was whipped or something - I have no idea.

Anyhow, for anyone who is interested, here is the "debate" that happened in the Legislature. I use the term "debate" loosely, since it was really just a bunch of back patting.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2010-0...

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:12

#14

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

You can find the motion near the bottom of the page at this link.

http://tinyurl.com/ycstfox

Anyway, I condemn the condemners.

I spent some time in Israel and the West Bank last May.

I must confess that prior to my visit I had some reservations about using the term "apartheid" to describe the Israeli state. Although I always supported the Palestinian cause, I wondered whether some folks on the left might sometimes be a bit "over the top" and I worried about the use of the term alienating progressive members of the Jewish community.

But, after my visit...going through the checkpoints, seeing Palestinians being "hassled" by the Israelis for documents, travelling on "Israeli only" highways in the West Bank, seeing "the wall" first hand, meeting Israeli military resisters, hearing the stories of the Palestinians from all walks of life, visiting refugee camps and seeing what living hell Palestinians lives are, I have no reservations whatsoever in labelling Israel an apartheid state.

There is no other way I can in all good conscience describe it. Palestinians are in all manner of their lives, treated collectively as inferior human beings.

And I'm in good company.

Here's a memo that Nelson Mandela wrote to Thomas Friedman of the "New York Times" back in 2001. I think Nelson Mandela is to say the least an expert on apartheid.

Mandela very clearly describes Israeli policy towards the Palestinians as one of apartheid. I will take my own observations and those of Nelson Mandela's over any Ontario MPP.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:20

#15

genstrike

even if you think the term apartheid is over the top, people shouldn't join with the opposition to condemn their allies because you don't approve of their messaging. Such people aren't really allies. If I don't like the slogan that my student union uses, I don't go running off to join forces with their political opponents to pass motions in the legislature condemning them.

And of course, this isn't the first time that Shurman has been butting in to student politics. Wasn't he the one who demanded that York overturn their election results because the leftie slate won?

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:23

#16

Michelle

In fact, Naomi Klein was a keynote speaker at last year's IAW, and she specifically endorsed BDS, and the term "Israeli Apartheid Week". She warned us against allowing the supporters of apartheid to dictate the terms of debate, and to dictate to us what terms we can use and what actions we can take.

Basically, any term that is accurate and that describes the magnitude of Israeli oppression of Palestinians is a term that apartheid supporters don't want us to use, because duh, it might actually change some minds.

And any action, like BDS, that might actually work, is an action that supporters of apartheid say is "out of bounds". Well, duh again.

Basically, they just want activists to say things that no one will listen to, and take actions that Israel can ignore. Any action is legitimate, as long as it is ineffective and doesn't bring pressure to bear for change. Any action that might be effective is, to apartheid supporters, anti-semitic and out of bounds.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:30

#17

Andrew Brett Andrew Brett's picture

I e-mailed Cheri DiNovo and received this response, which just demonstrates that she is poorly educated on the issue, if she thinks this is about religion:

Quote:
I don't believe that the term apartheid is accurate or contributes to the goals of peace in the middle east. I spoke out of conscience and after years of work with all faith communities.
I did not speak before also speaking to trusted muslim friends as well as Jews.
We cannot always agree but we should always act out of love.
Cheri

Whether you agree with the apartheid analogy or not, most progressives support the freedom of students to organise events discussing this topic.

If Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein can make the comparison, why can't students at Canadian universities do so without facing harassment from university administrations?

An NDP MPP joining in this chorus of condemnation and repression against student activists and the trade union movement (based on consultations with 'faith communities') is an embarrassment to the party.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:39

#18

Bookish Agrarian

Hey radiorahim - I am almost postive that memo was a piece of satire written in response to the column it references. I will have to check, but I am sure it wasn't actually written by Mandela.

Maybe my problem is I actually know South Africans who lost people close to them and body parts to the struggle and see the use of this term differently than a new generation of activists who are more focused on the Israeli occupation.

Israel is a occupying force, it has much blood on its hands, using a term like aparthied underminese the legitimate struggle for human rights and peace to me and devalues those South Africans who fought for generations against the Afrikaaner regime. But younger generations not so steeped in that struggle may only see the parallels and not the significant difference that make it inappropriate.

Edited to add

Yah here's a link about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&fo...

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:45

#19

Michelle

Andrew Brett wrote:
-----------------

------------------

That's for sure. It's a complete stab in the back, and so unnecessary. The NDP could have said something like, "Whether we personally think "apartheid" is an appropriate word or not is irrelevant - this motion goes against activist and academic freedom to engage in debate on campus, and therefore we can't support this motion."

Bookish, Nelson Mandela calls it apartheid. And so do a number of activists who were involved in anti-South African apartheid activism back then and are involved in anti-Israeli apartheid activism now. A few of whom spoke at last year's Israeli Apartheid Week events. I'll take their word over yours and Cheri Di Novo's.

Another stab in the back from the ONDP, selling out the progressives in their ranks yet again. How not surprising.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:51

#20

Bookish Agrarian

You got that the memo was not in fact from Mandela?

And I was only expressing my personal opinion. I also know former anti-aparthied activists who find the use of the word really offensive. And you will see if you re-read my post I condemned no one. I simply think that this younger generation just doesn't get it. Personally I would like to see an approach that helps them understand the differences instead of using a shock word to get a reaction. To me the historically correct term of occupation is strong enough and also much more accurate.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:53

#21

Kaspar Hauser

Michelle, do you have a link regarding Mandela?

Desmond Tutu, whose moral authority rivals Mandela's, and who certainly can't be called a young South African activist, has compared the situation in Israel/Palestine to Apartheid South Africa:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/tutu

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:55

#22

Michelle

So you support the ONDP using the Legislature to try and suppress student activists who use a term that the ONDP doesn't agree with?

Yes, I saw that after I posted, that the Nelson Mandela thing is inaccurate. My mistake. I didn't realize that. However, Archbishop Desmond Tutu HAS described Israel as an apartheid state, as Michael has posted. And it doesn't change the fact that "apartheid" is NOT a "single use" term (and there is actually a UN Convention against Apartheid that describes "apartheid" in general terms.

We can argue all day about whether "apartheid" is an appropriate term to apply to Israel. And isn't that great, that we can have that debate? Too bad your party is trying to take that right away from students on university campuses. Shame.

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:55

#23

kropotkin1951

Palestinians have been fighting for 60 years against this outrage that just gets more brutal and institutionalized. Seems like they have fulfilled your generational test.

So what should one call a system with two classes of citizens with distinctly different rights including the right to security of the person and home? Is there an "acceptable" word that conveys the everyday humiliation and fear and resistance that this system instills in the people living under the yoke of the Israeli government.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:00

#24

Michelle

You think it's wrong to question the motives of Cheri Di Novo?

Wow, so now not only should students allow the ONDP to censor them on campus, but also nobody should be allowed to question them when they attempt to do so?

I'm sorry, but Cheri Di Novo also spoke out against the move by the Liberals to remove the Lord's Prayer from the Legislature, and your party ensured that the Lord's Prayer is said every day, while "lesser" religions have their prayers rotated on a daily basis after that.

I certainly do question her motives, and those of any NDP MPP who joins forces with Conservative Israeli apartheid supporters to stab activists in the back in such a manner.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:00

#25

kropotkin1951

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I also think it is wrong to question the motives of someone like Cheri Dinovo. You can question her conclusion and her vote, but someone like her is doing it because she feels it is the right and proper approach.

If I were in the Leg I wouldn't have voted for such a motion, but I think someone like Dinovo is sincere when she says she doesn't favour that approach.

Then she needs to educate herself if she wants to be a progressive voice. Ignorance is no excuse for siding with the right wing against activists fighting for justice.

I don't care about her motive I care about her actions and her actions leave a lot to be desired.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:04

#26

Bookish Agrarian

That is fair comment to me. What I object to is ascribing motive to someone who thinks they are doing the right thing. Questioning whether they are right or wrong, that's a different matter all together.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:06

#27

Tommy_Paine

To paraphrase "Humphrey" in the sit com "Yes, Minister", voting against the resolution would have been the courageous thing to do.

Politics is for the faint of heart.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:08

#28

Michelle

Not one MPP voted against it, so that means all MPPs from your party (you're a member, so it's your party - I'm not, thank god, so to me, it's "your party" to people who belong to it) who were present voted in favour. And it was clearly thought out because she had a gigantic speech all prepared - I highly doubt she was just out on a limb there by herself, without any input from the rest of the party.

Not one NDP MPP had the guts to stand up for the freedom of activists to organize on their own terms. That is a failure of the party as a whole, not of just an individual MPP.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:12

#29

Bookish Agrarian

Michelle wrote:
You think it's wrong to question the motives of Cheri Di Novo? Wow, so now not only should students allow the ONDP to censor them on campus, but also nobody should be allowed to question them when they attempt to do so? I'm sorry, but Cheri Di Novo also spoke out against the move by the Liberals to remove the Lord's Prayer from the Legislature, and your party ensured that the Lord's Prayer is said every day, while "lesser" religions have their prayers rotated on a daily basis after that. I certainly do question her motives, and those of any NDP MPP who joins forces with Conservative Israeli apartheid supporters to stab activists in the back in such a manner.

I added this to my post, which I think addresses much of what you posted after me

"Looks like we crossed posted. First of all it isn't 'my party'. I have one vote on election day and cast it for the best person in my riding. That has mostly been a New Democrat, but I have also just not voted. Nor do I have any standing of note in any political party and work closely with politiicans from every party. Secondly I disagree with the votes. I also won't condemn a party, as I would not have condemned students, because this was, as far as I can tell, MPPs acting as private members, not voting in a block as a party. You might think that is splitting hairs, but I see MPPs when they are acting as independent agents in these kinds of situations, as acting in their own conscience and hopefully their constituents (although I am not so naive as to think this is always or even often the case), not as acting as agents of a party. But then I am a technocrat"

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:13

#30

Bookish Agrarian

I also think it is wrong to question the motives of someone like Cheri Di Novo. You can question her conclusion and her vote, but someone like her is doing it because she feels it is the right and proper approach.

If I were in the Leg I wouldn't have voted for such a motion, but I think someone like Di Novo is sincere when she says she doesn't favour that approach.

ETA

Looks like we crossed posted. First of all it isn't 'my party'. I have one vote on election day and cast it for the best person in my riding. That has mostly been a New Democrat, but I have also just not voted. Nor do I have any standing of note in any political party and work closely with politiicans from every party.

Secondly I disagree with the votes. I also won't condemn a party, as I would not have condemned students, because this was, as far as I can tell, MPPs acting as private members, not voting in a block as a party. You might think that is splitting hairs, but I see MPPs when they are acting as independent agents in these kinds of situations, as acting in their own conscience and hopefully their constituents (although I am not so naive as to think this is always or even often the case), not as acting as agents of a party. But then I am a technocrat

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:13

#31

Fidel

genstrike wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Apparently they are trying to prevent university groups from using campuses for their anti-Israeli political agendas? [drift] This seems to me to that this is a similar situation mentioned by Chomsky wrt 9/11 - that the 9/11 truth movement is a distraction from larger political issues and from where progressive people should be focussing their attentions, which according to Chomsky, should be directed toward activism against real crimes of the state. And for Chomsky, crimies of the state emanate from the source country enabling client states such as Israel and dozens more where basic human rights are trampled. And imo, South Africa is better today only in the sense that a racist apartheid regime is not still firmly in control of things in that country. According to Naomi Klein and others, S. Africans themselves are not better off economically under the neoliberal regime of things in Africa though. The neocolonialism has simply mutated, moved into surrounding African countries and murdering even more Africans at a frenzied pace today. The root source of the problem of neocolonialism still exists today in Africa with the same western countries that supported Pic Botha's South Africa during the cold war. Picking on Israel similarly will do nothing to abate the problem of neocolonialism and Anglo-American -sponsored oppression at its source.

Are you seriously trying to compare IAW organizers to 9/11 truth nutters?

Are you seriously trying to defend the NDP's vote in favour of this motion, based on Chomsky and Naomi Klein who spoke at last year's IAW?

No but if you can afford to pay attention for a few seconds, the left all over North America is somewhat divided right now on 9/11 as are the American ruling class and ruling elite in America. Otoh and simultaneously opposing a 9/11 Truth movement as a waste of time and resources, Chomsky says that focussing on Israel is also a waste of time and resources for the left. Chomsky says activists should concentrate efforts on activism and opposing the crimes of the state - as in crimes of the vicious empire at its source(ie. not Gary Doer, not Darrell Dexter, and not even the NDP but the imperial-master nation itself, and that'd be the Upside-down Socialist States of America proper) Capiche?

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:14

#32

Michelle

Bookish wrote:
----------
That is fair comment to me. What I object to is ascribing motive to someone who thinks they are doing the right thing. Questioning whether they are right or wrong, that's a different matter all together.
----------

Object all you want. The motives of politicians for making the political moves they make are completely fair game as far as I'm concerned. If I think they're pandering, I'm going to say so. They certainly were over that stupid Lord's Prayer thing, and I believe they're doing it again. I guess they just figure that there's no one else for activists to vote for, so they can stab us in the back time and again and we'll always come back.

And stupid me, I always do. I always get fooled. I always get lulled into thinking, okay, the NDP hasn't done anything completely stupid and anti-progressive in a while, and I've cooled down since the last time they did something stupid, so I guess I can support them again.

When will I learn?

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:19

#33

Tommy_Paine

Would you support them, Michelle, if it meant a whole lot of people assumed you were anti-semetic because you did?

Because that's the sword over the ONDP's head on that vote, make no mistake.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:24

#34

Bookish Agrarian

Michelle wrote:
Not one MPP voted against it, so that means all MPPs from your party (you're a member, so it's your party - I'm not, thank god, so to me, it's "your party" to people who belong to it) who were present voted in favour. And it was clearly thought out because she had a gigantic speech all prepared - I highly doubt she was just out on a limb there by herself, without any input from the rest of the party. Not one NDP MPP had the guts to stand up for the freedom of activists to organize on their own terms. That is a failure of the party as a whole, not of just an individual MPP.

Quit cross posting. I am a slow typer and can't keep up.

My experience would suggest that an MPP would more likely not discuss that with the party, or if there wasn't consensus then they would simply do what they wantd. MPPs are not quite the trained sheep people think they are and are often more independent than people realize. That's why I fail to see this as a 'party' issue.

It would also be much more likley that Di Novo's staff, not caucus services would have prepared that speech. It wouldn't even surprise me that Di Novo wrote it all herself. She has had years of practice writing sermons, and a sermon is really only a speech given in a church, not much more.

As I said I disagree with the vote/motion. I do though feel the word aparthied is wrongly used in reference to Isreal. That does not mean though that I think Isreal is not an occupying force with a great deal of blood on its hands.

I also feel students should be free to do what their conscience dictates, understanding that there might be consequences to those actions. Which why I said if I was in the Leg I would not have voted in support.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:26

#35

Bookish Agrarian

double post for some reason

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:27

#36

Fidel

So we don't vote ONDP as a reaction to Dinovo's half mis-step. That means the two old line parties vociferously defending Israeli-apartheid and enjoying phony-majority dictatorial rule in Ontario now will be even more empowered to not only support US-sponsored fascism in Israel, Ontario will continue being an impoverished have-not bastion of neoliberal ideology as well. I'm not wild about the options presented here.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:31

#37

Michelle

Tommy Paine said:
-------------
Would you support them, Michelle, if it meant a whole lot of people assumed you were anti-semetic because you did?

Because that's the sword over the ONDP's head on that vote, make no mistake.
----------------

I thought about that, and I get that this is what the apartheid supporters try to do to anyone who takes a principled stand on Israel. I know it takes a lot of courage to do the right thing.

But there is a way around that. You could stand and say, "I understand that the word "apartheid" is a very controversial term, and I don't personally agree with it. I don't think it's a very constructive way to discuss the issue. But I think it is within bounds of political debate on university campuses, and ultimately, this is a free speech issue. I cannot condemn activists for using terms I don't like, even when I disagree with them, so I cannot support this motion."

And yes, I would have said that if I honestly held the position that Di Novo does, about the word "apartheid". Or, if I didn't have the nerve to do that, or the vote was whipped, I would have considered just not showing up.

Under no circumstances would I go out of my way to join forces with the Conservatives to stab Palestinian rights activists in the back and attempt to suppress campus activism the way she did.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:31

#38

genstrike

Last time I counted, there were three old line parties vociferously defending Israeli apartheid

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:32

#39

Bookish Agrarian

Michelle wrote:
Bookish wrote: ---------- That is fair comment to me. What I object to is ascribing motive to someone who thinks they are doing the right thing. Questioning whether they are right or wrong, that's a different matter all together. ---------- Object all you want. The motives of politicians for making the political moves they make are completely fair game as far as I'm concerned. If I think they're pandering, I'm going to say so. They certainly were over that stupid Lord's Prayer thing, and I believe they're doing it again. I guess they just figure that there's no one else for activists to vote for, so they can stab us in the back time and again and we'll always come back. And stupid me, I always do. I always get fooled. I always get lulled into thinking, okay, the NDP hasn't done anything completely stupid and anti-progressive in a while, and I've cooled down since the last time they did something stupid, so I guess I can support them again. When will I learn?

Maybe I am just being pedantic, but I don't think you can call it pandering. I think Di Novo and Kormos thought they were doing some good thing. They were and are wrong, but that doesn't make it pandering - just mistaken/wrong/erroneous/faulty/misguided/flawed (take your pick)

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:34

#40

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You got that the memo was not in fact from Mandela?

And I was only expressing my personal opinion. I also know former anti-aparthied activists who find the use of the word really offensive. And you will see if you re-read my post I condemned no one. I simply think that this younger generation just doesn't get it. Personally I would like to see an approach that helps them understand the differences instead of using a shock word to get a reaction. To me the historically correct term of occupation is strong enough and also much more accurate.

I stand corrected on the "memo" Bookish Agrarian and thank you for that. I followed the link and yes it wasn't written by Mandela. But Mandela was indeed a supporter of the Palestinian struggle.

Nevertheless, I have my own personal observations from my trip there last May. And I can't call it anything else other than apartheid.

What would you call "Israeli-only" highways? Highways that you aren't allowed to travel on if your vehicle happens to have Palestinian Authority license plates? And I'm talking about highways that are located in the West Bank...in what is supposed to be Palestine. And these highways aren't the only roads that Palestinians aren't allowed to travel on...there are roads located in major towns and cities that are "Israeli only".

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:37

#41

Michelle

Oh please. Kormos' motive was that he was doing a "good thing"? He crowed about it in the media afterwards, about how he "stopped the Liberals in their tracks". And for what? To ensure that the Lord's Prayer is considered the supreme prayer over all others in the Legislature? That's the "good thing" he was trying to do?

Either way, it was a horrible thing to do - whether his motive was that he honestly feels that the Lord's Prayer is superior to all other religions' prayers, or his motive was to pander to religious freaks in an effort to defeat the Liberals on a good initiative just because the Liberals initiated it.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:38

#42

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Would you support them, Michelle, if it meant a whole lot of people assumed you were anti-semetic because you did?

Because that's the sword over the ONDP's head on that vote, make no mistake.

There have been times in the CCF/NDP's history when it has been courageous. Opposing the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War for one thing. The CCF correctly pointed out that this was wrong...and it was very unpopular. The NDP also opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act in Quebec in 1970...again courageous...and unpopular.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:47

#43

Bookish Agrarian

Radiorahim, I would call it an occupying force and the Israeli's using tactics older than time, but more efficently than most.

I can see parallels to aparthied, just like there are parallels to segregation and frankly to things in Canada's past and to dozens and dozens and dozens of other situations historic and current. That doesn't make it aparthied though - it makes it aparthied like with some similarities, but also some very significant differences. What is happening through out the Palestinian/Isreali landmass is odious all on its own without borrowing phrases from a different place.

But then I can be a bit pedantic too.

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:50

#44

Bookish Agrarian

Michelle wrote:
Either way, it was a horrible thing to do.

Yep

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:52

#45

Fidel

And the NDP opposes the US-led phony global war on terror.

Fri, 2010-02-26 00:19

#46

Unionist

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Would you support them, Michelle, if it meant a whole lot of people assumed you were anti-semetic because you did?

Because that's the sword over the ONDP's head on that vote, make no mistake.

Oh, those poor babies, a sword over their heads, my goodness.

I, a Jew, the child of Holocaust survivors, condemn them for trying to suppress courageous Jews and non-Jews alike who speak out against aggression and racism and modern-day genocide. I condemn this handful of NDP MPPs for their antisemitism.

But my little sword doesn't scare their poor heads much, does it? The "sword" they fear is of their own cowardly making. It's the same sword that stops them from telling the Lord to take His prayer elsewhere; to stop teaching Catholicism in public schools; and to support workers and ordinary folks and gays and lesbians and the rest of their natural consituency the one and only time they were in power. The only "sword" they fear is the neocons and neolibs calling them Communists and Jew-Haters and Atheists and Urban Queer-Lovers and Troop-Haters and Taliban Jack and Can't Run the Economy to Save Their Lives.

If they were only cowards, they would be pathetic. But allying with the enemies of the Palestinian people, and taking a stand against Canadians organizing in their support - these cowards become a danger to democracy and freedom.

Fri, 2010-02-26 01:38

#47

Michelle

The ONDP did pretty much nothing during the MMP referendum except to declare it lost from the very beginning of the campaign, so I hardly think that you should put "the ONDP and electoral reform groups" in the same sentence, as if they are somehow a team.

Fri, 2010-02-26 01:38

#48

Fidel

I'd say the sword over the ONDP's collective head is our obsolete electoral system which pretty much forces all parties to campaign over egg shells for that one four year term in power. Third rail issues like separate school funding will remain third rail issues as long our two old line parties refuse to do anything to upset the applecart and continue dictating political agendas. We had one of the lowest voter turnouts in the history of the province last time out. With FPTP, parties have little choice but to appeal to a very narrow base of voters doing the voting and choosing of government. If we don't care for the way it is, then maybe we should help the ONDP and electoral reform groups to work toward modernizing our electoral system and dealing with the democratic deficit overall. Elections have become lessons in bad math and rule by a few in this country. McGuinty's Liberals are running the entire show in Ontario with just 22 percent of registered voter support. FPTP creates a sutuation where it doesn't really pay for a party to stand out on any issue whether it's a progressive stand or not. 22-30 percent of the registered electorate aren't as sophisticated or progressive. It's pretty much a conservative province for a long time in Ontario, and Liberals are about as far left as the large minority want to swing left politically. There's a lot more wrong with Ontario today than deciding on how to fix Israel. Our two main political parties forming governments here can't fix what's wrong with Ontario never mind a US client state thousands of kilometres away in the Middle East.

Fri, 2010-02-26 01:42

#49

Fidel

Hampton did endorse the CA choice for MMP right there on the ONDP web site. The other two parties said zero about it on their party web sites. And I don't believe it was the ONDP's decision for all parties to agree not to campaign for the referendum or the double supermajority thresholds for it to pass. Support for PR was highest among NDP voters here and I believe in B.C. as well?

Fri, 2010-02-26 03:02

#50

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

If they were only cowards, they would be pathetic. But allying with the enemies of the Palestinian people, and taking a stand against Canadians organizing in their support - these cowards become a danger to democracy and freedom.

NDPP

I concur. NDP = No Difference Party. Shame upon them and those who defend their shame with that old NDP one trick pony that the others are worse. Increasingly they're the same - sellouts

Fri, 2010-02-26 03:20

#51

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

aargh, I hate this topic. Screwed if you do screwed if you don't. I'm not happy about this either but frick man the ndp's the only chance for incremental shifting of public sentiments. Call me if you need me for the revolution. I consider it a huge fricking success when I get anyone to start giving them more thought.

Pages

Topic locked