Steve Bannon debate widely criticized as platform for populist fascism

https://globalnews.ca/news/4613669/kansas-mosque-bombing-plot-trump/

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Cross-posted with you quizzical. Any time a head of government can pick up the phone and stop someone at the border it is too much arbitrary power. But again, the argument was most certainly a rhetorical one, not literal.

i'm pretty literal about him not coming into Canada. i just found out this all and am pretty upset.

sons of Odin and white supremacists are on the rise here in Kenney's AB. a family in an Edmonton suburb was told to go back to the reservation a couple of weeks ago.

any words out of his mouth here in Canada will intensify the hate.

no not in Canada.

ETA link underscoring why not here. Bannon got Ttump elected by egging this mentality on

..it’s the coalition that is demanding this event not go forward. as far as i know they are not calling for bannon to be banded. In the piece that i posted there were 35 organizations involved int the coalition. in a recent email i received that was now 40. and what they are saying this isn’t about free speech. in fact they say free speech is being used as a cover for something more sinister. for advocates of free speech this is not being addressed.

..people see what is happening in ont, in que, in alta (kenney), in the us, in brazil and europe. they can only look to themselves to fight against this because the relevant authorities that are supposed to protect us from things like fascism are busy being engaged with those that are the far right..whether government or corporation. there’s a new free trade deal that requires any new legislation around energy and pipelines to be drafted with the us. is there any doubt that the indigenous folk will bear the brunt of that process?

..none of this, as a larger picture, is being addressed by advocates of free speech in this case. and in absence of any authority that will work to protect us from these forces the local community should be supported as to how this plays out.

I agree that simply canceling the debate wouldn't be censorship, since, as I have often pointed out before on this forum, only governments have real power to censor, and private groups should be free to invite or disinvite as they see fit.

But the writer of the article seems to be saying that it's not censorship, because Bannon's ideas are so bad. Which is mixing up the two issues. To take a relatively neutral example, if the government were to say that no one is allowed to publish or otherwise disseminate anti-vaccination pseudo-science, it would be censorship. Even though anti-vax propaganda is as crappy in its own way as ethnic nationalism is in its way.

And I have to wonder: if people do think that the government is justified in banning Bannon on the grounds that he promotes racial nationalism, do they take the same view of someone like, say, Robert Billyard, who prior to his banishment from this site, had taken to making links to his own forum about topics such as the heckler in Quebec who was allegedly asking Trudeau some valid questions about Syrian refugees,  and Orban in Hungary fighting the good fight against "weapons of mass migration"?

Or is he just too small a fish to fry?

epaulo13 wrote:

..none of this, as a larger picture, is being addressed by advocates of free speech in this case.

They are in no way advocates of free speech ; they are very selective about it, and spend much of their time trying to silence minority voices. But using it to pretend that they are under assault is one of their main tactics, which is why those who call for cancellation of events like this need to be careful not to fall into that trap.

Remember the most recent "Free Speech Week" at Berkeley? The organizers didn't even bother to book rooms for the event because the whole point was to create a scene of opponents behaving badly.

https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-week-milo-best-troll-yet/

Obviously that is not what Munk is doing, but you can be sure this is going to be spun that way, which is why those who do call for cancellations should be careful engaging them on their ground. How this became an issue only after the mass murder last weekend is rather thin. This is also more of a problem for a political party like the NDP than it is for community groups.

But calling them free speech advocates (or worse, seriously calling for people to be arbitrarily banned) only serves their purposes by helping them pretend that is what this is all about. They are not. And Munk using that defense is just sidestepping their responsiblity for setting up a forum for this. But this didn't start last weekend, and it won't be stopped by a cancellation. They have been doing this for years.

As for how much of a draw Bannon is without David Frum on the ticket, and an organization like Munk behind him? He got 25 people including organizers recently. And this in the middle of an election campaign:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/midterms-2...

I do not think that the government ought to ban him. I think this plays into his hands and only helps him. The organizers if course can cancel but the govenrment getting involved would be a mistake and only help him. 

Better to see the debate take place and have him thrashed.

I still think the name of a debate which is between two parts of the right wing is misleading to many of the public. I think it is disturbing.

I also think that since the right wing are holding this, the left could hold a similar debate about how to respond to the right - through more established left parties or more polulist and community-based responses. I think the optics of this is better than the engagement in trying to force censorship that will only be used against the left anyway.

I agree if the organizers cancel it is not censorship but if the government does not allow him then it is. 

I dislike the idea of people showing fear of debating the bankrupt ideas of this stupid hateful twerp. This is certainly how this call for the debate to be prevented by government is going to be seen.

The national observer article at post 56 is written for people who already agree with the general worldview of the author.  The audience for the debate does not necessarily have the same worldview - it is not obvious to everyone that Bannon (and Trump) are racist xenophobes, and assuming that it is obvious they are is not pesuasive to people who think they aren't.  Bannon does not describe himself as a white nationalist or a racist and will argue that the left's charges of racism/white supremecy are partisan and a cheap and easy means of demonizing political opponents.   He did this on Bill Maher's show a few weeks ago.  Not everyone hears the dogwhistles, and this tactic can be distressingly effective.   And it unfortunately has some truth to it as well -- there are and have been relatively moderate conservatives called white supremecists/nazis in recent past, like Peterson.

Where this will become a free speech issue is if there is an attempt to physically shut the debate down.   If this happens I think it will be a gift to the provincial and federal conservatives, and more reactionary elements generally.

Smith said:

" why those who do call for cancellations should be careful engaging them on their ground. How this became an issue only after the mass murder last weekend is rather thin. This is also more of a problem for a political party like the NDP than it is for community groups."

I agree with this as well.   Not sure how I feel about Charlie Angus' comments about this but it made me uncomfortable.   I think Bannon is on the way down and it may have been better to just ignore him.

Hm. This from the Climenhaga piece...

If someone complains you're violating this unpleasant American citizen's free speech rights, remind them of the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the United States Supreme Court: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre."

Umm, Dave, if there's ANYONE who qualifies as an "unpleasant American citizen", it would be Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. If for no other reason than writing the very same court opinion that you quote so gushingly.

https://tinyurl.com/y7m5jz8c

Also...

If Bannon really wants to talk to Canadians, he can do as Galloway did, and take a bus to Niagara Falls, hold a news conference, and yell across the border.

But of course, Galloway didn't only do that. He went to the US and gave a speech at Rutgers(?), which was beamed via satellite into Canada.

Which kind of drives home the pointlessness of banning the Man Himself from entering the country. Assuming Bannon isn't allowed to transport his physical self into Canada to debate Frum, he can just as easily debate Frum(or some other Canadian) via Skype.

..for those who think that it is better for this to go ahead than the coalition shutting it down. i don't see how you can possibly know this.  

..this letter predates the mass murder. and this group of organizations (today much larger) also politically astute.

To the Directors of the Aurea Foundation and the Advisors of the Munk Debates: Steve Bannon is not welcome in Toronto

Open letter to:

Naylor and Associates
400 Logan Avenue
Toronto, ON M4M 2N9
By email: [email protected]

To the Directors of the Aurea Foundation and the Advisors of the Munk Debates:

The Urban Alliance on Race Relations, together with our supporters at the Toronto Labour Council, Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario, Canadian Anti-Hate Network, Canadian Council of Muslim Women, JSpaceCanada, The Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom–Toronto, and the East End United Regional Ministry, are contacting the Directors of the Munk Debates and the Aurea Foundation to express our grave concerns regarding the upcoming Munk Debate. On November 2, Steve Bannon and David Frum will be debating the rise of populism: “Be it resolved, the future of western politics is populist, not liberal…” As beneficiaries of a liberal society, we encourage all public debate including those on controversial topics. Such dialogues are a welcome indicator of a democratic society. However, we believe that Mr. Bannon’s participation is inconsistent with the purpose of such debates and indeed, that it diverges from the principles of democratic and civil society.

We are requesting that the debate be cancelled just as The New Yorker Magazine rescinded its invitation to Bannon at its annual festival. As reported on CBC (Sept 25, 2018), “Within hours of making the announcement, New Yorker editor David Remnick decided to cancel the interview, saying he did not want Bannon to ‘propel further the ideas of white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism and illiberalism.’ ”

Our objections to Bannon are based on his record a partial list of which includes:

• The Munk Debate website quotes Bannon as stating, “I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Many critics describe Bannon’s political orientation as consistent with fascism. At the very least, it expedites what we observe as the rise of authoritarian regimes internationally.
• The Times (May 28, 2018) quotes Bannon: “People only use words like fascist or racist when they can’t debate the facts. I wear it with pride when they call me a racist. I go, ‘You know why you’re doing that? Because you don’t want to talk about economic nationalism.’ ”
• As former Executive Chairman of Breitbart News, he once described Breitbart as “the platform for the alt-right.” The Southern Poverty Law Centre describes this movement as “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces…”
• Breitbart news has featured “violent, sexist, extremist and radical political content,”according to one corporation that joined over 2,000 organizations and companies in pulling its ads off the platform.

Bannon’s populism and “economic nationalism” antagonizes divisions between groups and is intended to recruit ultra-right extremists. It confers legitimacy on discriminatory actions against Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Indigenous peoples, racialized persons, immigrants, refugees, LGBTQ persons, women, trade unionists, and those who support diverse political views. It threatens our sense of belongingness to society, and undermines the mutual trust on which the sharing of public space rests. It threatens the enjoyment of our Charter rights to freedom of religion, speech, assembly and association.

While the Munk Debates and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy share only a funding agency, it is important to note that Bannon contradicts the activities of the latter institution. The Munk School’s 2017-18 Strategic Plan describes public engagement in areas such as “rising threats to open society”: “Suspicion of outsiders. Resentment of elites. Intolerance of differentness. Silencing of dissent. Around the world, populist leaders and authoritarian regimes magnify supposed threats while promising a better future—or a return to a mythical past. There’s a willingness to abandon long-held givens of the social contract, to break presumed ‘rules’ that are in fact mere conventions. Groups who feel forgotten want order imposed on uncertainty, often at the expense of tolerance and due process. Others fear for the future of open society, and even for their lives.” p. 20). In his current work as advisor to ultra-conservative parties and governments in Europe, Steve Bannon clearly and publicly embraces populist leadership and support for authoritarianism. Fear of its consequences are real.

The line between respectful debate representing diverse views and providing a platform for views that are violent in their intent can be a fine one. Bannon seeks to dismantle the very principles that enabled his participation in this debate. By offering him the space to articulate his outlook, the Munk Debates imply their legitimacy. It confers respectability on them. Bannon’s remarks and influence have real consequences for us, for all Torontonians, and for the majority of people around the world. Indeed, these consequences are concrete for countless groups and individuals every day.

Whether directly or indirectly, Bannon encourages extremist groups like the Canadian Combat Coalition, La Meute, Soldiers of Odin, and the Proud Boys that we are hearing all too much about. Followers of these groups are responsible for far more terrorism than any fabricated racialized enemy that they wish to blame for these acts. In Toronto, three far-right leaders—all of whom have publicly called for white nationalism and all of whom romanticize Nazism—are so emboldened that they came forward as Toronto mayoral candidates. Suddenly, what was inconceivable is not only possible, but normal.

We will be contacting the media in our urgent request that you intervene to stop this debate as a director of the Aurea Foundation and an advisor to the Munk Debates. We hope you agree with us that the November 2 Munk Debate in which Steve Bannon appears is an offense to these organizations, to democratic principles, and to all Canadians.

voice of the damned wrote:

I've only read the first couple of chapters of that book(in a hilarious translation). Does the book actually use the word "racist" in a complimentary way? Because in the absence of such a direct embrace of the word, a lot of the book's(and Bannon's) admirers will somehow be able to deny to themselves that it is racist.

Well, I haven't read the book either, but the excerpts I've seen are pretty clearly racist, imho. Here is a clip by Cenk Uygur that goes into quite a bit of gory detail.

Michael:   Was not familiar with the Camp of Saints, or Bannon's admiration for it, and the general plot description from wikipedia sounds pretty racist to me.   I don't consider Bannon's statements on finding the book inspiring to be irrefutable evidence that he is a racist or white nationalist, if by irrefutable you mean would be persuasive to someone unfamiliar with Bannon or who agrees with economic nationalism.    I don't need convincing Bannon is bad news, and my view is he is consciously using racial dogwhistles in his messaging because he thinks they work.   I don't know and don't really care what he actually believes, that he uses them is enough for me.

voice of the damned wrote:

Umm, Dave, if there's ANYONE who qualifies as an "unpleasant American citizen", it would be Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. If for no other reason than writing the very same court opinion that you quote so gushingly.

A recurring source of amusement for me is when some Canadian progressive, endorsing bans on hate speech, approvingly cites Holmes in Schenck, without knowing that the case had nothing to do with fires or theaters, but rather upholding the imprisonment of a socialist for advocating that people refuse to register for conscription into World War I. (It was also overturned 50 years ago in Brandenburg.)

To respond more to the issue of their reasons -- you have them bolded upthread. While the points are valid in themselves they do not justify the response. He states that he craves suppression - why give it to him? The other points are points in favour of a judgment that he is dangerous and vile, not that the right reponse is to give him the banning he would probably be able to use.

He cannot be silenced by us. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only protest. Instead of trying to stop this debate the time and effort should be spent on  getting the biggest protest organized to greet him. Trump won't dare come to Canada. Let's show Bannon why. Let people know that nthey can come out and send a message to Bannon (and Trump) about what we think of his ideas. Let the power of the protest answer the debate about which is the future.

The fearful response of trying to avoid what Bannon says in this way is counter-productive. The argument is lost before it can begin: the reason people could even want to stop him is becuase he already is being heard. Greet him. Tell him what we think of him. 

Which reasons are not being addressed?

..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is. 

Pardon my ignorance here, but Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra were two cases in Canada. Don't we have laws in place here in Canada criminalizing hate speech?

Please elaborate...

epaulo13 wrote:

Which reasons are not being addressed?

..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is. 

What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Which reasons are not being addressed?

..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is. 

What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.

..not for the coalition and not for me.

Misfit wrote:

Pardon my ignorance here, but Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra were two cases in Canada. Don't we have laws in place here in Canada criminalizing hate speech?

Please elaborate...

We have no law against what someone might do or extra-territorial application of these laws based on what they have said elsewhere. His purpose is to come to say if populism is the way of the future or not and be challenged on that point. If he expressed hate then I prefer the optics of him being shut down and charged for that than him being prevented from speaking at all.

Like those two, if Bannon expressed hate in Canada in line with those then he should be charged, as they were.

He should not be banned for what he might do.

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Which reasons are not being addressed?

..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is. 

What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.

..not for the coalition and not for me.

I do not understand this at all.

We are talking about him becuase he is a threat -- not for a single other reason. Helping or hurting that threat is not just relevant -- it is everything.

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Which reasons are not being addressed?

..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is. 

What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.

..not for the coalition and not for me.

Again I addressed that post directly: nothing in that post addresses an argument about why it is better to ban him. They speak to what he is and not how to deal with him and the risks of the response making him stronger. I spoke to this at length. How can you say I did not?

It is my argument that has not been responded to.

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To respond more to the issue of their reasons -- you have them bolded upthread. While the points are valid in themselves they do not justify the response. He states that he craves suppression - why give it to him? The other points are points in favour of a judgment that he is dangerous and vile, not that the right reponse is to give him the banning he would probably be able to use.

He cannot be silenced by us. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only protest. Instead of trying to stop this debate the time and effort should be spent on  getting the biggest protest organized to greet him. Trump won't dare come to Canada. Let's show Bannon why. Let people know that nthey can come out and send a message to Bannon (and Trump) about what we think of his ideas. Let the power of the protest answer the debate about which is the future.

The fearful response of trying to avoid what Bannon says in this way is counter-productive. The argument is lost before it can begin: the reason people could even want to stop him is becuase he already is being heard. Greet him. Tell him what we think of him. 

..i don't disagree totally with what your saying sean. i have another perspective though. one of the things that surprised the most coming to babble was the lack of knowledge of how grassroots organizing works. building movements comes from seizing the moment when one spontaneously arises. this is an opportunity to build something greater especially in the face of of the ford election.

Another point on this: Canadians have gone to the US to protest Trump. The opportunity to have one of them, with all the attention they get come to our biggest city where we can bring the most convenient protest is an opportunity. Perhaps one too good to miss.

The answer is not to silence him it is to respond to him -- at the grass roots level. To make that response so powerful that observers get an education on what "populism" can be. Based in Toronto, I think we could get a better turnout than what Trump got for his inaugration to tell his proxy what we think of his ideas.

Again why is the discussion about how this could leave both Bannon (stronger or weaker) and the opposition to him in Canada (stronger or weaker) not the most relevant thing to you? Why is that not the entire point?

The argument he brings is bogus. This is about helping or hurting him and helping or hurting the response to his kind of ideas.

This ought not to be santizing our public space so that we pretend this does not exist and sleep-walk our way into losing to it.

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To respond more to the issue of their reasons -- you have them bolded upthread. While the points are valid in themselves they do not justify the response. He states that he craves suppression - why give it to him? The other points are points in favour of a judgment that he is dangerous and vile, not that the right reponse is to give him the banning he would probably be able to use.

He cannot be silenced by us. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only protest. Instead of trying to stop this debate the time and effort should be spent on  getting the biggest protest organized to greet him. Trump won't dare come to Canada. Let's show Bannon why. Let people know that nthey can come out and send a message to Bannon (and Trump) about what we think of his ideas. Let the power of the protest answer the debate about which is the future.

The fearful response of trying to avoid what Bannon says in this way is counter-productive. The argument is lost before it can begin: the reason people could even want to stop him is becuase he already is being heard. Greet him. Tell him what we think of him. 

..i don't disagree totally with what your saying sean. i have another perspective though. one of the things that surprised the most coming to babble was the lack of knowledge of how grassroots organizing works. building movements comes from seizing the moment when one spontaneously arises. this is an opportunity to build something greater especially in the face of of the ford election.

And taking the moment would be about organizing a response to what is out there not banning it to pretend that it is not there. The movement against Bannon may be at the grass roots level much better served by a response to what he says rather than by trying to prevent it (and probably failing).

..agree or disagree the movement has taken a decision sean. i say suppot it. you have said more than once that you voted ndp not because you agreed with everthing they do and say. this can apply in this instance.

What is the "movement"? I do not associate with a group for the sake of it. This response is controversial and ill-advised in my opinion.

You misunderstand my position with the NDP -- I do not support it for the sake of supporting it when it is wrong. I vote and take the best option available. I will always say that questioning and criticising the movement (whatever movement that is) makes it stronger and supporting blindly makes it weaker. My entire history here of over 15 years has been about that. I believe that we have to question constructively from within. I have never agreed to support for what cannot win on logic. This way of thinking is a losing proposition.

This is not the best option. So I disagree and do not support it. 

You talk about grass roots being more important than leadership. This is about that. This is not some movement where some leaders tell us what to think or to act. 

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Which reasons are not being addressed?

..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is. 

What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.

..not for the coalition and not for me.

Again I addressed that post directly: nothing in that post addresses an argument about why it is better to ban him. They speak to what he is and not how to deal with him and the risks of the response making him stronger. I spoke to this at length. How can you say I did not?

It is my argument that has not been responded to.

..the post doesn't talk about banning bannon. banning was injected into the conversation upthread, not from the coalition.

..here is just one quote from the piece that hasn't been addressed.

quote:

The line between respectful debate representing diverse views and providing a platform for views that are violent in their intent can be a fine one. Bannon seeks to dismantle the very principles that enabled his participation in this debate. By offering him the space to articulate his outlook, the Munk Debates imply their legitimacy. It confers respectability on them. Bannon’s remarks and influence have real consequences for us, for all Torontonians, and for the majority of people around the world. Indeed, these consequences are concrete for countless groups and individuals every day.

I disagree. Trying to suppress confers more power to his ideas.

I absolutely disagree that holding a debate confers legitimacy or respectability to one side of it.

I disagree that these debates are designed to address Bannon's views on anything other than the resolution. If he gets into his hate ideas, then arrest him. Warn him beforehand even. Greet him with protest. But to claim that the debate on populism is an endorsement of an opinion on something else is needlessly doing what you say you are trying to avoid.

I also disagree that Bannon speaking in Toronto has greater consequences in Toronto than him speaking in Atlanta other than the opportunity to respond to him with protest. People can hear him in toronto regardless.

Sure it is unfortunate that he was invited. But trying (and probably failing) to get him uninvited is more likely to have a negative effect on Toronto than letting him come and giving him the biggest protest we can muster.

epaulo13 wrote:

quote: from sean

The answer is not to silence him it is to respond to him -- at the grass roots level. To make that response so powerful that observers get an education on what "populism" can be. Based in Toronto, I think we could get a better turnout than what Trump got for his inaugration to tell his proxy what we think of his ideas.

..this is a creation not reality. the folks that could bring this together have already decided to shut the the debate down.

No - they have decided to try. They do not have the power to presume success.

If anything, a large planned protest would give the city a reason to be able to cancel the event as a disruption and risk - logistical reasons. If that is what they want. This would be less useful to Bannon anyway than if it was c

The presumption that their letter is the only response and would work is the creation here.

If that is their only plan and there is no contingency to protest their action would be short sighted. Do you really think that they will just give up if the organizers tell them to get stuffed?

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To respond more to the issue of their reasons -- you have them bolded upthread. While the points are valid in themselves they do not justify the response. He states that he craves suppression - why give it to him? The other points are points in favour of a judgment that he is dangerous and vile, not that the right reponse is to give him the banning he would probably be able to use.

He cannot be silenced by us. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only protest. Instead of trying to stop this debate the time and effort should be spent on  getting the biggest protest organized to greet him. Trump won't dare come to Canada. Let's show Bannon why. Let people know that nthey can come out and send a message to Bannon (and Trump) about what we think of his ideas. Let the power of the protest answer the debate about which is the future.

The fearful response of trying to avoid what Bannon says in this way is counter-productive. The argument is lost before it can begin: the reason people could even want to stop him is becuase he already is being heard. Greet him. Tell him what we think of him. 

..i don't disagree totally with what your saying sean. i have another perspective though. one of the things that surprised the most coming to babble was the lack of knowledge of how grassroots organizing works. building movements comes from seizing the moment when one spontaneously arises. this is an opportunity to build something greater especially in the face of of the ford election.

And taking the moment would be about organizing a response to what is out there not banning it to pretend that it is not there. The movement against Bannon may be at the grass roots level much better served by a response to what he says rather than by trying to prevent it (and probably failing).

..agree or disagree the movement has taken a decision sean. i say suppot it. you have said more than once that you voted ndp not because you agreed with everthing they do and say. this can apply in this instance.

What is the "movement"? I do not associate with a group for the sake of it. This response is controversial and ill-advised in my opinion.

You misunderstand my position with the NDP -- I do not support it for the sake of supporting it when it is wrong. I vote and take the best option available. I will always say that questioning and criticising the movement (whatever movement that is) makes it stronger and supporting blindly makes it weaker. My entire history here of over 15 years has been about that. I believe that we have to question constructively from within. I have never agreed to support for what cannot win on logic. This way of thinking is a losing proposition.

This is not the best option. So I disagree and do not support it. 

You talk about grass roots being more important than leadership. This is about that. This is not some movement where some leaders tell us what to think or to act. 

..no one is trying to force you to do anything sean. or how to think and act.

..what leadership are you talking about sean?

You are pressuring me to stand down for some idea of solidarity even though I disagree with the action and think it is counterproductive and harmful. This was your argument I responded to.

Any leadership. You don't win arguments by telling people to support those who decided something that that those people argue is wrong.