Cheri DiNovo should apologize

Make up your mind. Is it her public page or her private one? And how does one say "um I think you are losing it and causing yourself more damage then good"? In any arena?  Here we often say step away from the computer or they need a break. In real life you might pull the person aside and tell them. On FB you post a comment. Its ANYONES business to intervene on behalf of a friend, especially if the behavior is self destructive. And it was prob Andrews instinctive action to post a reply like that, jsut like here some of us have reflex actiosn to post "fuck you" or "your wrong and a racist/sexist/classist/etc person"

We have all done that (I do try to stop that these days but often fail)

remind wrote:

What a good way to indicate what is going to happen to left cred politicians, or indeed any left  public figure, who do not tow the line with what  the so called left pureists say and want to hear. As to me, there is absolutely no doubt what is being indicated by games like this, and others that I have viewed over the recent past  here, which is the use of rabble/babble as a silencing and destroying mechanism.

...as it has, and will be continued to be used to destroy anyone's leftist credentials and self esteem, if they are not towing the line that the 'left' "elite" want towed.

Purist?  Left elite?

She not only voted to condemn us, but spoke in favour of a motion condeming us.  I worked my ass off to bring IAW to Winnipeg, and DiNovo voted to condemn my comrades in Ontario.

I expect my allies not to publicly condemn me.  If that makes me a purist or part of a left elite or a privileged white male, so be it.

I mean, if this is the definition of purism, at this point we might as well call Caesar a purist for being disappointed with Brutus.

Unionist is not le...wrote: "Michael Nenonen: I guess you missed the part where I said as propaganda (which I don't see as necessarily a bad thing), as a descriptor for the "movement" and indeed of the political reality, I in fact do not have an issue with the term apartheid. But I do have an issue with presenting IAW as somehow a university conference, or a discussion or debate taking place across university campuses. In that context precisely, I find it exclusionary, hateful, and anti-thetical to dialogue. I would never go so far as to stop the use of such language, but I would hope that, precisely in the name of academic integrity, such preemptive foreclosure of open debate would be roundly condemned. As far as more appropriate names. How about glorifying and upholding the Palestinian people, not starting from a stance of hate and accusation, and having Palestinian Liberation Week? An honest and open dialogue could even ensue, but even if didn't, tactically, it would be a brilliant strategy for fundamentalist Leftists. You could spew the same one-sided hate-filled bile at Israel, elevate all Palestinians to abject victimhood and utter sublime blamelessness and fly completely under the radar."

Uh-huh...so, again, I guess you would have been opposed to the anti-South African Apartheid movement because it spewed the same one-sided hate-filled bile at the White South African regime, and elevated all Black South Africans to abject victimhood and utter sublime blamelessness.

And I guess the attempts by, for example, Jewish opponents of Israeli Apartheid who have invited people on the other side of the fence to publicly debate them were really attempts to shut down public debate through offers that were, by definition, exclusionary, hateful, and anti-thetical to dialogue.

Christ, man how exactly in your world should people go about exposing and opposing significant geopolitical evils?

Or is Israeli Apartheid the evil that dares not speak its name?

On another subject: It takes a fair amount of contempt for an on-line community to repeatedly hack your way back into a discussion board that you have been explicitly banned from participating in. It's quite the precedent, too. I suppose you're okay with every other person who has been banned for violating the terms of use doing the same. After all, if you don't respect the authority of the moderators, why should they? Why shouldn't they simply barge back in here to post whatever homophobic, racist, sexist, or imperialistic garbage they want to spew? You're setting an example that, if followed, would completely undermine the integrity of this space.

remind wrote:

genstrike wrote:

  I worked my ass off to bring IAW to Winnipeg, and DiNovo voted to condemn my comrades in Ontario.

Oh you poor boy, all that work and no respect...oh right it was in Ontario not Manitoba.....

Right after they did it in Ontario, it gave some Tory MLA the bright idea to do the same thing in Manitoba.  We've had the leader of the opposition and an NDP cabinet minister call for IAW to be banned here.  This vote started a trend, so it does affect me in Manitoba.  But, I guess solidarity also stops at the Manitoba-Ontario border, so I'm sorry for being frustrated that DiNovo joined in with Shurman to attack the people I was working with on this.

remind wrote:

Quote:

I expect my allies not to publicly condemn me.

that street goes 2 ways eh.....

Tell it to DiNovo - by her actions, she proved she isn't my ally.  So I'm treating her as such.

unionist wrote:

And by the way, Sineed, while it's not my place to ask her to apologize (as I mentioned from the outset), I have every right to condemn the shameful words she pronounced in public,

Don't get me wrong, unionist; I had no problems with what you said.  I just wouldn't have minded hearing the impressions of more folks who live in the riding (there are a few of us here eg Le T.  And I think Parkdale High Park, though I don't think he's posted in a while).

I don't think I can speak for the Palestinians - there are many who live in this riding btw.  She does need to reconnect with the people she's alienated, and I'm not sure how she'll do that (apologizing is a good start).

I'm still waiting for Bob Rae to apologize for his term as Premier.

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

It's one thing to disagree but this is a bit over the top, yes.

So is this:

Quote:

... the NDP has not contacted the police at the family’s request.

That's understandable - usually it's the target of death threats that contacts the police, no?

And if she hasn't, why not?

 

Are we attacking the victim here?

The thing is, we have no evidence she had received death threats. She never did give specifics and instead appeared to blame the death threats on anyone who disagreed with her.

I'm sure her politics in other areas are stellar, but she threw us under the bus with the stunt she pulled on FB (and her siding with the Con against us). If you can't accept criticism don't say such divisive things. Pretty simple. Her FB page is for her to connect with her supporters. Democracy includes hearing dissenting opinions. Cheri wanted none of that and took to deleting all dissenters and defriending people whom had always been her allies.

She has only herself to blame. Until she takes action on the so-called death threats, then I might believe they actually happened. As of now, we have zero proof except her word, and as seen by her facebook meltdown and her strawman replies to legit criticism, I won't be holding my breath.

It has been reported Cheri has received death threats. Now she is being attacked for not reporting the death threats. How do we know the death threats have not been reported to police. Sure sounds like attacking the victim. Perhaps someone else should apologise.

I don't agree remind, which doesn't mean I don't believe women who say they have been raped or beaten.

Her FB rage was because she didn't want to be told she was wrong. She freaked out.

I'm sorry you guys feel like we are piling on her but really I don't care. She is a public figure who said and did some pretty stupid things. Israel right or wrong is not a good stance to take.

Respectfully, I do not fully agree, I think her FB  outburst, was based upon several things, one of which was death threats against her.

and yes, i have also had death threats made against me, directed by someone(s) who was allegdedly on the "left".

hell, i have even had death threats made against me by right wing whackers who did not like something i posted in a forum and they literally went to extended lengths to find out my phone number in order to do so.

 i fully realized that people, no matter their political orientation, have the capability to utter death threats when they believe that their "cause" is being threatened by another. And this is not just a cause, it is pertaining to people's lives. Palestinians are dying and will continue to die, unless Israel is stopped. Thus it is no stretch for me to believe that someone with emotionally vested interests, might go over board with their anger comments at the first blush.

It does not mean they will act them out, anymore than someone will  who says in anger; "god i could kill, insert name, for doing that".

But of course like in the case of the dude last week in Edmonton, it could also mean they will/could at least try.

thus, i would never ever determine someone was lying when they state such, and especially not when they have the creds that CDN does.

Stargazer wrote:

I'm sorry you guys feel like we are piling on her but really I don't care. She is a public figure who said and did some pretty stupid things. Israel right or wrong is not a good stance to take.

 

Don't you think your putting words in her mouth? Unless I'm mistaken, Cheri DiNovo has never said "Israel right or wrong". Believe it or not - it is possible to oppose the use of the word "apartheid" to describe Israel and also be highly critical or various particular policies of the Israeli government. You are trying to project on to anyone who isn't 100% in favour of IAW that they are some flag waving Likudnik - which is clearly not the case.

BTW: I'm sure it really galls some people here - but in the mainstream media Cheri DiNovo is actually getting good press and is being depicted as a heroine who is standing up for her beliefs despite death threats etc...I'm not saying that she deserves the good press - but that is the way she is coming across and for every person who reads babble, there a million who read the Star or the Sun.

Stock, of course the MSP is giving her good reviews. They are wimps, they report mainstream crap. What else do you expect? An honest debate about Israel in the MSM? Not going to happen.

Lawrence Cannon has also criticized Israel for building those new settlements in the occupied territories. I hereby accuse Lawrence Cannon - Conservative Minister of Foreign Affairs of being an Anti-Semite!! (sic.)

I happened to hear Frankie D from B'nai Brith on a radio talk show yesterday. Aside from citing the Jewish people's biblical claim to Israel, attacking Obama's health care program, suggesting that Obama will turn out to be the worst president in US history and asserting that he's known from the start that Obama was not a friend of Israel, he vilified Horwath (and the ONDP by association) for her letter and extolled Cheri's position. 

Would he have done so if Cheri had said something like, "I support the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions" but I don't think that the most effective way to do that is by labeling Israel as an apartheid state". It is BDS that Israel fears - they've already been called everything in the book. 

I also heard John Tory discussing the Biden/settlement issue last night. Tory was critical of Israel for that and brayed about how no one has called him an anti-Semite. He repeated that several times implying that it is not common practice, especially when "friends" criticize. 

I noticed a small article the other day in "Metro", the free paper distributed every morning  by the Toronto Star. It stated that the death threats were on facebook (which implies they may have been PMs). 

Quote:

Lou - I'm with Stargazer - DiNovo is not a victim - she's the one who victimized people who are targeted daily by the Harper regime. Like some countries in the Middle East that I know, her response to criticism of that stand is to present herself as a victim. I'm not convinced.

But perhaps, since you're asking me to "back off", you could explain why she made these death threats public?

Other question: Do you think she should apologize for her speech?

 

Nice try unionist, but I'm not engaging in the question of DiNovo apologizing for her speech.  You can try to deflect attention from what I said, but I'm not biting.

I don't care what she said in her speech, death threats to politicians are not acceptable. Even if she herself made death threats, two wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps she made the threats public (from what I can see it was the NDP leader, not her that did so) to make people understand what public figures are sometimes subjected to.

I have a low tolerance for people who call politicians at home to offer opinions.  That's probably because I'm married to an MLA, and while most of her calls are people who need some assistance and are easily re-directed to her office, I'd hate to have my kids answer the phone when some right wing lunatic wants to chew out my wife for being a feminist in Alberta.

So yes, I am asking you to back off.  If you don't like the content of DiNovo's speech, make arguments against it until you are blue in the face.  But you are twisting what's in the media about the death threats into something it's not.  You've accused her of refusing to answer questions without a thread of evidence she has ever had the question put to her.  You are accusing her of lying with no evidence at all to back yourself up.

thread drift/I received a death threat on a picket line. Actually the police told me that a gentleman, who held me responsible for his car not getting through the picket line, wanted to talk to me. He threatened to have me killed. He weighed over 300 lbs, I weighed 135 lbs. I reported the threat immediately to the police. They questioned the gentleman, he denied the threat, end of investigation/end thread drift

I believe she's telling the truth about getting threatening phone calls, Bookish.  I just don't think they were from the people who were trying to politely engage her on facebook.

And that's what she was wildly suggesting on Saturday night in her incoherent ranting and freaking out on Facebook.  When she wasn't calling people fascists and idiots.  Meanwhile, the Toronto Star characterized what people were writing to her on Facebook as "the nastiest" things MPP's were receiving.

So, just to be clear, polite disagreement from supporters Cheri has "friended", including Muslim women and men that she defriended for disagreeing with her on the issue, is painted as "the nastiest" even in comparison to this:

[quote]

Shurman, who is Jewish, has received email messages calling him everything from "the minister of kikes" to a "Nazi."

[/quote]

Unionist wrote:

As for "abuse", would you say that if all this criticism were directed at Frank Dimant or Bernie Farber or Michael Ignatieff or Helena Guergis or Bob Rae?

Interesting that you should bring this up, Unionist. Because all these people have said far worse than Cheri, and don't have 2+ threads demanding that they should apologize and ridiculing their claims of having recieved threats.

You are switching goalposts, Unionist. We were talking about abuse, now you are talking about whether she should apologize or not. Or perhaps you are saying that abusing DiNovo to get her to apologize is acceptable because she is progressive?

I think gita's stand is principled and clear: Cheri, you were wrong. If you want us as allies, apologize. If not, the hell with you. At any rate, now we will ensure that the ONDP as a group, can move forward in the right direction, with or without you. But as for badgering and hectoring a woman? No thanks, it's unimportant, and it's beneath us.