Lawrence Martin has written a column on Mulcair in today's Globe.
Mulcair seems to be emerging as the obvious next NDP leader. To me he is one of the most forceful and articulate MPs in Parliament and I would cetianly consider him as the next leader.
I would be interested in others' views of his strengths and weaknesses.
unionist had some rather devastating remarks on Mulcair. I think it had to do with him being a apologist for the racist Israeli regime.
That's correct.
To be honest, I benignly ignored his views about Israel as long as it was just a matter of his opinion. People are entitled to their opinions. I even swallowed my disappointment when I wrote to him about getting the NDP out of CPCCA, and he referred my letter to Judy Wasylycia-Leis for reply - at the very same time when the Bloc heeded the calls of progressive Quebeckers and publicy renounced and quit the CPCCA.
However, when Mulcair threw a rabid fit last summer and attacked Libby Davies publicly, he brought his views into the realm of Canadian and NDP policy. For that - and until he retracts - I will never support him again.
I share the sentiments expressed [url=http://www.pajumontreal.org/paju_en/?/10/Fed-up-of-Mulcair]in this letter[/url] which I received at the time.
"
Yup, that's my MP, Tom Mulcair, standing tall(est), next to Claudette Carbonneau, president of the CSN, Michel Arsenault, beleaguered president of the FTQ, and Raynald Leblanc, head of the locked-out journalists."
And I thought you had forgiven him.
"
Yup, that's my MP, Tom Mulcair, standing tall(est), next to Claudette Carbonneau, president of the CSN, Michel Arsenault, beleaguered president of the FTQ, and Raynald Leblanc, head of the locked-out journalists."
And I thought you had forgiven him.
None of the reasons have changed as to why I supported him before. I just can't vote for him after what he did. If he gave a little, I would too. But when Layton [url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/2010/12/postscript-new-mccarthyism]apparently delegated Mulcair to attend this fanatical pro-Israel event[/url] a couple weeks back, my neck stiffened and my indignation was refueled:
Attending this new-McCarthyism event were: David Johnston, the new governor-general, Peter Milliken, the speaker of the House of Commons, the speaker of the Senate, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and last but not least Thomas Mulcair, the most aggressive pro-Israeli MP in the NDP caucus. Given that this was a private affair (even though they deliberately mislead people with their name -- the Canadian "Parliamentary" Coalition), I suppose it would have been difficult for Jack Layton to stop him.The problem is that Jack Layton actually sent Mulcair to the event to represent the NDP, a fact confirmed to me by Layton, but never revealed to the NDP caucus.
All of this is truly repugnant from so many perspectives it's hard to know where to start. But let's start with the governor-general, the representative of the Queen who is, by tradition and the institution, supposed to stay well away from involvement in and commentary on political events. One can hardly imagine a more political event given that its ultimate aim is to criminalize criticism of Israel. If this was his first major public event, it is a sickening start to his new job. Who decided he would go? Did Stephen Harper put pressure on him? Did he come up with this appalling decision on his own? Did his staff not warn him -- or were they complicit in having him attend?
I take it that the purpose of this thread is based on the assumption that Jack Layton will be stepping down as NDP leader after the next federal election.
Can you confirm this with any degree of certainty?
I, for one, hopes that he continues to be leader after the next election, as it took Ed Broadbent 10 years to lead the NDP through his fourth election (1988), when the New Democrats had their greatest electoral success.
Even with his health concerns, speculating on who will succeed Jack when he hasn't even announced that he's leaving is rather a waste of time, don't you think?
Most people in Canada do not support capital 'Z' Zionism. But they do support a good deal of the defacto 'operating principles' of it.
I can understand anyone withdrawing support from Mulcair because of that. But you better be cognizant what we are up against... Let alone expressing any surprise about David Johnston or any other GG, degrees of support for giving Israel the room to do its thing are rife in Canada. This includes people who said in polls that they strongly disaggreed with What Israel did[does] in Gaza, and before that in Lebanon, and before that....
When it comes to Israel, expecting even progressives to take the progressive position is self defeating.
Is there any possibility that Mulcair could pull off an "only Nixon could go to China" move on the I/P issue, and use HIS reputation as a hardline pro-Israel type to push for more concessions to the Palestinians than a self-proclaimed "non-Zionist", "post-Zionist" or "anti-Zionist" might be able to?
You know, I dont think that fear of what the voters will say is the primary thing stopping anyone from playing that role in Canada. It exists of course. But I dont think they ever get beyond the primary thing: in my books most of them are big Z or small z Zionists to some degree. They actually want the position they express, it is not [primarily] some kind of sticking to what is safe.
And for all I know, that might include Jack Layton himself.
The "only Nixon could go to China" thing, epitomized in this theatre by Menachim Begin, is when you are making concessions that are useful in your national interest. I dont think the parallel follows for outsiders- no matter how supportive. And I dont mean by that 'Mulcair isnt Jewish'. The practical point is that he is not Israeli. It would be just as much true that Bernie Farber, or some more virulent Canadian, is on that level just another outsider.
I'm trying to imagine the morally/ethically perfect leader who would be capable of rescuing this country from the dreck now in charge, a christ-like figure who somehow avoids being nailed to some wood, but fights tooth and nail against the obscenities that are destroying a couple of centuries of social progress.
Can't really bring that imagery, that biblical perfection, to focus, in Canada, 2010.
But rescued, we must be...
Perhaps that kind of perfection will rise from among the ranks of the organized, where ethical shortcuts are never made ? If not there, where?
I can't think of anyone ready to be the charismatic and energetic and truly progressive leader this country needs today. I also don't know all the members of the parliamentary caucus so there may be someone lurking in the House ready to step forward that I simply don't know about, but if that person exists, I have no idea who it is.
Same here, Boom Boom.
From what I have seen of him on video, I think that Mulcair has the "Royal Jelly". The unlearnable aura of competence and sincerity that makes people feel that they can trust him to make decisions for them. Whether he would actually improve the situation if he became Prime Minister is another question, but I am cautiously optimistic that he might, despite his faults.
He looked really tired to me just before the Parliamentary break, but I think they've been working overtime in Quebec reorganizing the section there, and doing candidate recruitment.
I've disagreed with Unionist's interpretation of what happened internally in the caucus last summer in regards to Libby's remarks, and contend that the unfolding of time has rather proven my point that they simply managed the news cycle to make the story go away, and that internally they were quite united about not letting it grow into anything more foolish ... which seems to have worked.
I wonder if the political culture of the NDP is fully ready for Mulcair's "irish temper" as he called it in his interview with Lawrence Martin. He's certainly incredibly intelligent, but seems to make enemies sometimes, while Layton is incredibly patient and wise. Mind you I think Layton has really grown into that job, and who knows ... the travelling involved in winning the NDP leadership might yet see Mulcair mellow a bit.
Still you have to admire the risks he's taken to do the job that someone needed to take on ... namely to try and realize the potential for building a national social democratic party's support within Quebec. The work ethic involved in that endeavour alone certainly makes me consider him seriously.
But I'm not ready to let go of Layton yet either.
Mulcair has the potential to be Canada's Tony Blair.
He isn't really a national presence and I don't really see him doing a great deal to create an image for himself outside of Ontario and Quebec. The Central Canadian [Overlords] seem comfortable with him, but he hasn't really established much of an image elsewhere.
Mulcair has the potential to be Canada's Tony Blair.
Yay?
lol does that mean he will go around and talk about how we need to have more religions in politics and also be a total bloodthirsty lying warmonger? lol.
One thing he won't be is a war-monger. He was elected running very hard on an anti-Afghanistan mission platform.
That's correct.
To be honest, I benignly ignored his views about Israel as long as it was just a matter of his opinion. People are entitled to their opinions. I even swallowed my disappointment when I wrote to him about getting the NDP out of CPCCA, and he referred my letter to Judy Wasylycia-Leis for reply - at the very same time when the Bloc heeded the calls of progressive Quebeckers and publicy renounced and quit the CPCCA.
However, when Mulcair threw a rabid fit last summer and attacked Libby Davies publicly, he brought his views into the realm of Canadian and NDP policy. For that - and until he retracts - I will never support him again.
I share the sentiments expressed [url=http://www.pajumontreal.org/paju_en/?/10/Fed-up-of-Mulcair]in this letter[/url] which I received at the time.
I think it would be quite dangerous to have someone like Mulcair as NDP leader. Just about anyone else as leader would at the very minimum be open minded about the rights of Palestinians and could possibly be influenced enough to shift the NDP towards a more progressive position. But someone like Mulcair? No way.
I, for one, hopes that he continues to be leader after the next election, as it took Ed Broadbent 10 years to lead the NDP through his fourth election (1988), when the New Democrats had their greatest electoral success.
In hindsight it would have been better if Broadbent had been leader for at least another dozen years or so.
Hopefully Layton will be able to lead the NDP for at least another decade.
Looks like Mulcair and the NDP will again make nice with the Tories to keep them in power. And versy vicey:
Tories Soften Tone with NDP Ahead of 2011 Budget - by Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-soft...
"...the NDP becomes Mr. Harper's only remaining dance partner. NDP finance critic Tom Mulcair said he agrees with Finance Mininster Jim Flaherty's recent assessment that the two of them found some common ground during a private meeting on the budget...Mr Mulcair said polling shows no party stands to gain now from an election...
The Prime Minister's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, also singled out NDP Leader Jack Layton's efforts for praise in an email this week to reports announcing the government would invite Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi to Canada.
Ipsos Reid pollster Darrell Bricker agreed with Mr Mulcair's assessment that no party stands to gain from an election. He said history has shown the NDP and Conservatives can work together without taking a political hit.."
here we go again...
The NDP has nothing to gain from propping up the Cons. Propping up the Cons would just hand the Liberals a lot of the anti-Con vote.
The NDP should try to prevent the next election from becoming one of those ancient "Tory vs Grit slugfests" that marginalizes other parties.
We shall see...
I can't think of anyone ready to be the charismatic and energetic and truly progressive leader this country needs today.
Charlie Angus?
Mulcair has the potential to be Canada's Tony Blair.
He'll win three straight majority governments? 
Lawrence Martin has written a column on Mulcair in today's Globe.
Mulcair seems to be emerging as the obvious next NDP leader. To me he is one of the most forceful and articulate MPs in Parliament and I would cetianly consider him as the next leader.
I would be interested in others' views of his strengths and weaknesses.
I'm with you and Lawrence Martin, nicky. There's not a snowball's chance in hell for the NDP in Quebec, otherwise. And I believe a lot of voters from Ontario westward - like his fellow Quebecers - really appreciate the absence of equivocation. John Baird can eat his heart out... : )
I love Charlie Angus - I used to live in his riding 1990 - 1995 and still have an abiding interest in what happens there. Charlie and I are Facebook friends - I should have been the first to suggest him as NDP leader, guess my brain was tired.
A classic Charlie Angus moment in Hansard from last October (first entry on page):
excerpt:
"What has become very clear over the last number of years with the Conservative government is a pattern, and a very disturbing pattern, of reckless spending, reckless attacks on the credibility and the institutions of public office in this country and a sense of entitlement that we see again and again of who one knows in the PMO. If one is a buddy of the Conservatives, things happen.
We are looking at the largest debt in Canadian history but, as we would all agree, some of that debt was necessary in order to stimulate a very broken world economy. However, when we look back at what we have after spending the $50 billion, I think future generations will wonder what the Conservative government was thinking.
For example, the Conservatives blew money right across the country on personal pet projects. For instance, in the industry minister's riding, they paid stimulus dollars to heat the seats in the hockey arena so that the derrieres of Conservative voters would not be discomforted while they were watching amateur hockey."
One thing he won't be is a war-monger. He was elected running very hard on an anti-Afghanistan mission platform.
Correct - which was one of several reasons that I voted for him and worked for him. Among other things, even as an "outsider", he proved he understood where the very economically and socially diverse constituents of Outremont were at.
Again, I'm torn apart about the Israel thing. Maybe I'll get a delegation of Jews together to go talk to him.
Mulcair has the potential to be Canada's Tony Blair.
That should send a chill down the spine of every progressive.
I opened this thread to explore the possible strengths and weaknesses of Mulcair as a possible future NDP leader. Much of the discussion has focused on the narrower Palestinian issue. I appreciate there are strong views held on this issue which in the opinion of some eliminate Mulcair from consideration.
I hope we can have a broader discussion. I suspect that given the demographics of Outremont it would be electoral suicide for Mulcair to have taken much of a different position on the Palestinian issue. This perhaps explains but might not excuse. I don't purport to know. The broad Canadian electorate will however not cast it's vote on this issue.
I would like to get a better sense of Mulcair. I like what I see. I think he is formidably articulate and persuasive. there seem to be electoral opportunities beckoning the NDP in Quebec which may be harvested with Mulcair as leader. The party's weakness in Quebec has always undermined It's viability nationally. I remember that it was only after Mulroney broke through in the polls in Quebec in the 1984 campaign that the rest of the country fell in line for him. Maybe the same thing can happen with Mulcair.
Again, I'm torn apart about the Israel thing. Maybe I'll get a delegation of Jews together to go talk to him.
That sound very thoughtful and proactive. I am doubtful about changing his opinion (just a hunch), but at least you will be able to see his justifications. Probably you will get some insight on the Libby Davis issue also.
I think its a great idea. Yourself and others from his own riding even [the moral authority of that].
And I think its a great idea precisely because I think his main motivation is affinity with Zionism... not political. And its not like he wont have heard your arguments. But it will be different anyway, whatever the outcome. And it may be a step in change that does not show immediately.
Looks like Mulcair and the NDP will again make nice with the Tories to keep them in power. And versy vicey:
Tories Soften Tone with NDP Ahead of 2011 Budget - by Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-soft...
I read the same article, and I think it's reading a LOT into it to say that the NDP was in any way the instigator of this. All the sourcing of the story came from Flaherty's people and the PMO.
Now, in the next breath we should concede the ironic niceties of the pre-election dance:
I also think it's possible that people who disagree on issues might still find some agreement on exactly what issue they'd like to disagree on as the focus of an election campaign. For example, the Conservatives and Bloc might find common cause in fighting the election over the reallocation of seats in the House of Commons, if the Conservatives wanted to be seen to be defending Ontario and the Bloc wanted to be seen to be defending Quebec. They would agree to disagree, but make the disagreement the focus of the election so as to try and squeeze the Liberals.
Again, I'm torn apart about the Israel thing. Maybe I'll get a delegation of Jews together to go talk to him.
That sounds very thoughtful and proactive.
I agree, and would be interested to hear your impressions of such a meeting afterwards.
I did read a liveblog of Kady O'Malley's about his speech to that Parliamentary group, and from what she wrote, it was a very short pro forma greeting that reiterated the party's position and wrapped up quickly. Nothing incendiary either way. Will see if I can dig up the link for you, but certainly Kady went expecting either fireworks or to be able to report something that would generate fireworks from the opposite direction, but wound up with nice brief diplomatic pablum instead (probably the very thing that was required in that situation).
I did read a liveblog of Kady O'Malley's about his speech to that Parliamentary group, and from what she wrote, it was a very short pro forma greeting that reiterated the party's position and wrapped up quickly. Nothing incendiary either way. Will see if I can dig up the link for you...
OK, that wasn't hard ::
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/11/liveblog-ndp-deputy-le...
The relevant section:
Mulcair gives a few examples of antisemitism in and around his riding of Outremont, and stresses that, when it comes to AAW, he -- Mulcair -- doesn't believe in the argument that the debate shouldn't take place: he wants to confront it head on, and segues to an anecdote about a participant in a pro-flotilla event who confessed to him -- Mulcair -- that he was shocked when another member of the group suggested protesting outside a local business owned by someone in the Jewish community. It was, Mulcair notes, an example of the "Any Jew Will Do" attitude; he recalls similar hostility against an NDP candidate who wore a head scarf. Which is why, he says, it's important to remember than intolerance can flow through -- or against -- any race, ethnic or religious group or culture. He also doesn't think much of the excuse that someone is "anti-Zionist", not antisemitic, and vows, once again, to face that debate head on, at McGill and everywhere else.
Wow, that was a shorter speech than I was expecting -- it just sort of wrapped up soon after that. Really, his focus seemed to be the anti-apartheid weeks, but he did make the argument that almost always, there is antisemitism at the heart of such allegedly anti-Zionist sentiments. At least, I think that was his point.
By the way, the incident he's referring to with the NDP candidate who wore a head scarf was a particularly atrocious radio interview with Benoit Dutrizac that Bourassa NDP candidate Samira Laouni endured with great dignity, which Mulcair attended with her.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=128fdad2-9df6-48b7-b...
I opened this thread to explore the possible strengths and weaknesses of Mulcair as a possible future NDP leader. Much of the discussion has focused on the narrower Palestinian issue. I appreciate there are strong views held on this issue which in the opinion of some eliminate Mulcair from consideration. I hope we can have a broader discussion. I suspect that given the demographics of Outremont it would be electoral suicide for Mulcair to have taken much of a different position on the Palestinian issue. This perhaps explains but might not excuse. I don't purport to know. The broad Canadian electorate will however not cast it's vote on this issue. I would like to get a better sense of Mulcair. I like what I see. I think he is formidably articulate and persuasive. there seem to be electoral opportunities beckoning the NDP in Quebec which may be harvested with Mulcair as leader. The party's weakness in Quebec has always undermined It's viability nationally. I remember that it was only after Mulroney broke through in the polls in Quebec in the 1984 campaign that the rest of the country fell in line for him. Maybe the same thing can happen with Mulcair.
I believe he can articulate reasons for Canadians to accept the NDP's position(s) on the economy. One hears very little about economic positions either within or outside the party (given the complete rightwing bias of the media.
And since the article mentioned Mulcair's openess to working with the Liberals, I would really like to see where Liberal and NDP economic policies merge/converge at this time. Starting with a look at the major issues, which someone the other day labeled government excuses. Does anyone here have access to the Mulcair position on pensions...given the independence of Quebec and old "firewall" Alberta on that issue the other day? Is the NDP's readiness to bolster the GIS first (along with upping CPP premiums) what Mulcair proposes to his constituents in Montreal, and Quebec generally?
Some days I wish I had TV and broadband. The Globe sure as shucks ain't gonna tell me.
He also doesn't think much of the excuse that someone is "anti-Zionist", not antisemitic, and vows, once again, to face that debate head on, at McGill and everywhere else.
Really, his focus seemed to be the anti-apartheid weeks, but he did make the argument that almost always, there is antisemitism at the heart of such allegedly anti-Zionist sentiments. At least, I think that was his point.
Hearing this is useful.
There are two closely related, but different, things going on here.
One is that by this account- and it is consistent with what I would expect/predict to here from Mulcair- he does share in that trope of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This is going to be problematic in any discussion with him. But...
The related but distinct thing going on is that Mulcair is viewing the criticism of that trope about anti-Zionism through the inflamed theatre of the anti-apartheid weeks events and similar exchanges. Justifiably or not, fact is that stuff poisons the well. So how Mulcair relates to it is not a gauge of how he would receive and participate in a discussion with a delegation.
To be blunt: it requires some logical pyrothechnics to tell a bunch of mild mannered Jews that it is all cloaked anti-semitism. The kind of people Mulcair listens to are able and willing to do that pretzel logic. But Mulcair isnt them.
I love Charlie Angus - I used to live in his riding 1990 - 1995 and still have an abiding interest in what happens there. Charlie and I are Facebook friends - I should have been the first to suggest him as NDP leader, guess my brain was tired.
Charlie Angus would be an obvious choice for me in this theoretical post-Layton leadership contest.
You can't be from Timmins-James Bay without having close ties to the labour movement. I'm assuming...but not 100% sure that he's bilingual given the large Francophone population in his constituency.
He's an ex "rock star"...and the most net savvy member of the federal NDP caucus leading the fight against US style "copyright reform" by the Tories and also leading the fight for net neutrality. Angus truly "gets it" in the way he uses social media.
And, while I don't remember the exact FB post, from what I recall he seemed within the limitations of caucus discipline to be one of the few NDP MP's to come to Libby Davies defense.
From (temporarily I hope) outside the caucus, Peggy Nash would be a good choice too.
One is that by this account- and it is consistent with what I would expect/predict to here from Mulcair- he does share in that trope of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This is going to be problematic in any discussion with him. But...
The related but distinct thing going on is that Mulcair is viewing the criticism of that trope about anti-Zionism through the inflamed theatre of the anti-apartheid weeks events and similar exchanges. Justifiably or not, fact is that stuff poisons the well. So how Mulcair relates to it is not a gauge of how he would receive and participate in a discussion with a delegation.
To be blunt: it requires some logical pyrothechnics to tell a bunch of mild mannered Jews that it is all cloaked anti-semitism. The kind of people Mulcair listens to are able and willing to do that pretzel logic. But Mulcair isnt them.
What exactly does this mean, that IAW "poisons the well"?
Well, apartheid is such a loaded term (and intentionally so) that it's impossible to have an emotionally neutral conversation after invoking it.
I think the proponents of that tactic fully intend for it to be confrontational. Confrontation is not the step before resolution however. It poisons the well for a negotiated settlement in the short-term.
As to its necessity in the long-term, that will always be a judgement call. I try and stay out of Middle East policy because I know so little about it all, and only ever get sadder and sadder the more I read about it all.
Israel is the neocons political hot potato, and there is a colder war on. Russia supports the Palestinians while the axes of the free market good have been arming Israel as well as some of Israel's arch enemies to the eye teeth in hopes of fueling a glorious new war.
The NDP should sit out this round of colder war rhetoric imo. We don't need any more NDPers put on secret profunc lists and them and their's spied on by shadow feds for decades. I imagine the right to be just as hyper-paranoid of an outbreak of democracy as ever.
No loaded terms for oppression? Or is merely calling what is being done to the Palestian people "oppression" enough to poison the well? Language matters. If not apartheid what do you call it? Normalizing language is unfair to the people who have been living and dying in a large concentration camp, for multiple generations.
It sounds a lot like if only the people being beaten would be nicer in their complaints the benevolent bully would stop the worst of the abuse. Because after all how can you expect a bully to change if you call him a bully instead of agreeing that he is a upstanding member of the international community and you are most likely a violent terrorist who should be glad to be allowed in the same room as righteous folk.
Well, apartheid is such a loaded term (and intentionally so) that it's impossible to have an emotionally neutral conversation after invoking it.
Well I'm sure that all will be well once the Palestinians ask for forgiveness for not being "emotionally neutral" about living under 60+ years of occupation.
Then everyone can sit down over tea and crumpets and have a nice friendly little chat that will resolve everything. No need to get all "emotional" about things like checkpoints, the security wall, a destroyed economy and environment, theft of water resources, house demolitions and all those little wee problems.
I just finished reading the "interview" with NDP candidate Samira Laouni that ottawaobserver linked to above... the behaviour of the radio host was totally disgusting. She should have kicked him in the groin for being such a total asshat - preferably while wearing steel toed construction boots.
Because after all how can you expect a bully to change if you call him a bully instead of agreeing that he is a upstanding member of the international community and you are most likely a violent terrorist who should be glad to be allowed in the same room as righteous folk.
I follow the philosophy that if one doesn't have the courage to confront the actual bully and ring leader, then why bother? If there isn't an abatement of the problem at the source, then we are only playing their game. If one rolls in the mud with pigs so to speak, you're only going to get dirty. it's what pigs do.
So Fidel are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? If you are disagreeing then I am not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that we should ignore Israel until the evil empire collapses?
Actually, after reading some of the well-meaning posts above, I think I'll take Mulcair's utter silence at my latest letters to be his final word on the subject. If he hasn't figured out yet that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu using the term "apartheid" in describing Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic - or even that being anti-Zionist is not some kind of covering for really wanting to slaughter Jews - then I'm afraid he's not in the confused swing camp. Likewise for some of the comments above, I'm sorry to say.
This is not some irrelevant "foreign policy" issue. When Mulcair makes these statements (as with Libby, and as reported by Kady) in public, in the name of the party, then he is standing for the opposite of all that I believe and that makes me get up in the morning (or whenever, depending on shift work).
If Mulcair said sweet fuck all about Zionism and Jews and Israel, I'd be fine with that. But he appears to be a fanatic on the issue. According to Kady, he "vows, once again, to face that debate head on, at McGill and everywhere else." I've written to him twice as a constituent and a campaign supporter - once regarding the CPCCA, once on Libby - and never received a response. So much for facing that debate "head on".
He can go and fuck himself.
Folks, I was deliberately trying not to comment on the content. I was answering the question of why the IAW might be viewed as "poisoning the well", not whether the word apartheid was the correct one to use.
But my point was that, even if it is the correct one to use which I'm inclined to believe it is, although I'm perilously ill-informed on the details, the fact of using that word does not in the short-term contribute to people stopping that behaviour willingly.
Surely you don't believe that by using that word you're going to create an epiphany on the other side that will suddenly cause them to change their point of view. Surely that's not the objective in using it.
Whatever happened in South Africa, what I think made Mandela such an important leader and role model is that he understood the necessity of first, winning the fight to change things, but then second, promoting truth but also reconciliation. The words chosen to do that will be different than the words being chosen now.
This was the point I was trying in my awkward way to make, and of course it produced the predictable response, leading me to wonder once again why I even bother to ever write about this subject on Babble.
Lesson learned (again).
d'oh, double posting
