Thomas Mulcair

laine lowe wrote:

I freely use the term apartheid to describe Canada's treatment of First Nations.

Some would argue that if we really wanted to remove every trace of "apartheid" from Canada we would do the following - repeal the Indian Act, shut down all First nation reserves and governance, declare that there is "One Canada" and that all citizens are equal and end any and all recognition of First nations as "nations" and instead have a "one state" policy for Canada where everyone First Nations and non-First nations alike have exactly the same rights. It all sounds good in theory except that if any Canadian government tried to do that - it would lead to a virtual insurrection by First nations etc... 

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

If you bothered to read for anything other than your own brilliance you would find my comment flows directly from the previous comment I made in the thread.  One just does it using the techniques learned in Mrs. Johnstone's Creative Writing course.  Now you might quibble about whether it was a sucessful use of those techniques but it is germaine to the direction this nonsensical thread has gone.

I thought it was quite successful.  It made me smile and I understood what it was saying and thought it was as germaine to this thread as anything else.   Maybe I got it though because I'm sympathetic to what it was suggesting.

I supported Thomas Mulcair enthusiastically, until he started (last June or so) frothing at the mouth about Libby Davies and BDS - for no apparent reason. Then I couldn't support him any more, unless he backed off. [b]There was never any need for him to go crazy on the issue of Israel[/b], especially by attacking a Deputy Leader of the party.

If he had, in June, made some public attack about "we've got to stop coddling First Nations or women or transsexuals" - I would have reacted the same way - and everyone here would have concurred with me.

If he had said, "Canada can't leave Afghanistan - we have to finish the job" - most here would have concurred with me.

But when he freaks out about Libby Davies and when he says that anti-zionism is a cover for anti-semitism - hordes of apologists step forward aggressively to attack all comers.

Conclusion? Some people on the left have a serious blind spot on the issues of Zionism and Israel and Jews and Palestinians.

The fortunate thing is that such people have become a significant, though rather desperate, minority on the left.

dp

Unionist wrote:

But when he freaks out about Libby Davies and when he says that anti-zionism is a cover for anti-semitism - hordes of apologists step forward aggressively to attack all comers.

Conclusion? Some people on the left have a serious blind spot on the issues of Zionism and Israel and Jews and Palestinians.

The fortunate thing is that such people have become a significant, though rather desperate, minority on the left.

"Hordes of apologists." What a hoot.

And the left is already a small minority. But after you finish turfing the rest of us as beneath respect, you can claim some credit for the 'desperate' and decling part.

KenS wrote:

"Hordes of apologists." What a hoot.

Oh, don't worry Ken, I was kidding about "hordes", as you would know if you bothered reading the rest of my post. The Israel-boosters in the left are diminishing to zero.

Quote:

And the left is already a small minority.

Spoken like someone who can't see the real life movement out there - someone for whom "left" is a label worn, not a life lived.

George Victor wrote:

But what a great difficulty hereabouts, riding the knifedge distinction between unter and ubermensch.  Always, the struggle to meet the test, fall into line.

Just do what I do.  Refuse to take the test in the first place or just consider it irrelvant.  Paper degrees aren't always what they're cracked up to be. :)

Yes, just a value-free, objective, dispassionate evaluation, without heat...anywhere. 

We refuse to dis Mulcair, so therefore we must be pro-Israeli!! We're blown. Charade we are.

Winston wrote:

I'm just wondering: what the f*ck does the Palestinian conflict have to do with the Federal Canadian political scene anyway?

Ask Irwin Cotler. Or Jason Kenney, Scott Reid or any of the other MPs who are members of the CPCCA. They're the ones who feel it's acceptable to use their status as elected officials to promote an organization that most certainly is [i]not[/i] parliamentary but benefits from the fraudulent appearance that it is. Ask these elected officials who have less interest in standing up for the rights of [i]all[/i] of their own constituents to express their opinions than in using the position we've given them to intimidate some of us into silence in an effort to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions.

Canadian MPs turned this into a Canadian issue. So did Tom Mulcair with his attendance at the recent meeting of the international parent organization of the CPCCA and his willingness to throw the deputy leader of his own party under the bus in defence of that same foreign government. Ask your question of Mulcair because he's now on board with the rest of them who have turned this into a Canadian political issue.

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ, when someone attacks Mulcair or Obama, some people here take it as an attack on themselves. If they were just prepared to discuss these public figures, they wouldn't need to feel as if they themselves were being "tested".

 

Well if that explination floats your boat then motor away.  It doesn't float mine.

Right at this moment, my boat couldn't sink if I weighted it down with anvils. Where the heck is your boat that it won't float right now??

Let me rephrase to make my comment clear enough. 

I disagree with your explanation. My opinion differs from yours and your comment does little to change it and any further discussion along that line of thought (at least directed at me in particular) is not going to move it much further.   We're in different boats on this particular question and issue.

I'm glad you added that. I didnt get it.

#175....

Closing for length