Paul Moist blasts Sid Ryan CUPE National vs CUPE Ontario

Moist is an appropriate name for this fella-tio.

I think Paul Moist is saying the right thing. CUPE has passed resolutions that have been quite hard on Israel and calling for an end to the occupation - and i don't have a problem with that - even if i may or may not agree with every single sentence. But calling for a boycott of Israeli academics unless they sign some affidavit drawn up by Sid Ryan attesting that they oppose what's going on a in Gaza is really going off the deep end. That crosses a boundary into violating freedom of speech and opinion in Canada. I mean why only boycott Israeli academics who don't want to sign Ryan's declaration? Why not expel all CUPE members who refuse to sign a petition deploring what Israel is doing in Gaza. and what about Americans who haven't jumped through quite enough hoops to prove that they really, really, really disapprove of the invasion of Iraq and really, really, really hate Bush?

If people actually want to put pressure on Israel - it might help if they told Sid Ryan to stuff it. All he does with his over the top rhetoric is make himself and his cause an object of ridicule.

For anyone around the union movement it is painfully obvious that Sid Ryan has become, shall we say, unwelcome. Friends at CUPE in Ottawa tell me the entire National Executive think Sid is an idiot and has shamed CUPE. Hard to argue with that

Well you wouldn't would you since, you were promoting that view with your Ottawa "friends". I appreciate the fact that you have taken time out from your regular scurilous and disingenuous posting here, by spending that last while trying to intimidate the CUPE leadership in Ottawa.

And here, I thought your absence was caused by some measure of speechless embarrasment at the ethnic cleansing program being conducted in the name of the cause you hold so dear.

900 hundred and counting, and your big move is trying to silence CUPE Ontario, when it opposes the only Fascist state in the Middle East.

Setting aside the issue of the Middle East, it is pretty common knowledge that Sid Ryan is considered an extremely abrasive person and many people on the left who may agree with his politics find him pretty unbearable. I'm told that each of the five times he ran for the ONDP and FNDP and lost - the main reaction at party HQ was...relief.

You should start a thread on Syd's political fortunes, rather than de-railing the thread. The thread is about CUPE Ontarios stand on the Middle East. Nice try Stockybaba, as much as you would like to set that "aside". 

I'm trying to be constructive. If you want to start a campaign in Canada to put pressure on Israel - I suggest finding a credible spokesperson - rather than an easily dismissed loud-mouthed shnook like Sid Ryan.

Why was this thread opened at all. There is already a thread on Syd Ryan and CUPE Ontario... someone didn't like the "optics" on the previous thread title?

I don't agree with Sid Ryan's proposed boycott of academics. The target is wrong (academics?), the method is even worse (having to sign some arbitrary statement?).

But I completely applaud Ryan for trying to turn the boycott/divestment movement's ideas into action and I applaud any union leader who thinks its the role of workers and unions in this country to do more than write letters when it comes to this and other foreign policy issues.

Stockholm, if your uncited accusations are true, I think that says a lot more about the NDP than it does about Sid Ryan who would've made a great MP. It's sad that the only progressive leader in this country who has been as vocal as the people on the streets about the massacre in Gaza is Ryan, who unlike the rest of the NDP has some authenticity. Even Libby Davies has been reduced to squeaking out relatively tepid open letters.

I am a member of CUPE Ontario and highly critical of Israeli action in Gaza. I do not though support this idea of a discriminatory boycott. The Israeli academics I know have all been pro-peace but to ask that they make some kind of an oath to retain their jobs is really unfair. I fully support our National President as do I think many other sisters and brothers.

I have to wonder what is really going on. Is this more Paul versus Sid because we knwo that the two men can;t stand each other and can barely be in the same room. Or does Moist know something that we don't about the opinions of the membership regarding this latest opinion of Sid.

I have sat back and watched babble for the last couple of weeks. not posting because I have wanted to read what others are writing. My thoughts and opinions on the middle east are well known here. 

But 1 thought has crossed my mind since I first saw the Ryan release -- waht would CUPE national do and say. Well now we have it

Were boycotts organized against Apartheid South Africa "descriminatory" against Afrikaners? Or people of Dutch dissent generally speaking?

I don't recall there ever having been an attempt to bar South African academics from speaking in Canada unless they swore some oath of oppositition to apartheid. The divestment campaign against South Africa was focused on economic sanctions and not on treating individuals who happened to carry a South African passport as pariahs on a personal level.

The exact parameters of what is in Syd's mind have not been explained. I see no reason that representatives of Israeli Universities could not be boycotted, just as sports figures, or salesmen, as part of an economic boycott, against Apartheid Israel.

I see that Israel has now implimented overt Apartheid policies in Israel proper, banning half the Arab MK's, and that the ILP is calling for the banning of Ballad and the "United Arab List" as terrorist organizations.

But lets talk about Syd Ryan's "descriminatory" statements, and "real" racism.

Will you join me in also calling for a total boycott of the following countries:

 The US (for Iraq)

China (for Tibet)

India (for Kashmir)

Russia (for Chechnya)

Indonesia (for Aceh)

Turkey (for Kurdistan)

Zimbabwe (for Mugabe)

Sri Lanka (for the Tamils)

Sudan (for Darfur)

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and various other Muslim countries (for their apartheid policies against women)

and many other places i don't have time to think of right now

It seems that Syd has reconsidered and softened his stance. He has gone from boycotting individuals to a boycott of institutions.

 http://cupe.on.ca/doc.php?document_id=677&lang=en

There already are sanctions against Zimbabwe you moron. As well as arms limitations sanctions against Sudan. Sanctios were invoked against Iraq for years, and Serbia has been economically penalized on and off for years.

The reason that we do not pay more attention to Kurds and Tamils and so forth, is that Israel is a direct creation of European foreign policy, and integrated deeply into the social, political and economic relations of the "european" political axis. It is that simple.

One might as well ask, why we spend so much time reading and talking about the UK, as if that is indicative of some kind of special bias. Well it is a bias, and it comes directly from our mutual responsibility for helping to create Israel, and our continued deep integration with it politically, socially and economically.

Just like our special relationship to South Africa was forged in the colonial period, and its ongoing participation in the Commonwealth, of which Canada is a member.

There is nothing odd about this at all.

The fact that the Kurds and the Tamils don't have countries of their own and are brutally opppressed is also a product of "European foreign policy". who do you think drew up arbitrary lines during decolonization that didn't give these peoples a country?

I haven't heard of any "academic boycotts" of Zimbabwe whereby professors from Harare are automatically declared persona non grata.

You know nothing about Kurdish history obviously. Kurdistan was retained by Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. Kurdsitan has not been a free state since about 1500, and since that time under rule of the Turks.

Moreover, Kurdish tribal leaders were principle allies of Mustafa Kemal, during the war against the British imposed Greek occupation.

"Kurdsitan has not been a free state since about 1500"

What does that have to do with anything? Palestine has not been a free state since - umm - ever.

Meanwhile Turkey sees fit to massacre Kurds to throw people in jail for even uttering a word of the Kurdish language. 

It has everything to do with it. The conditions of Kurdistan are not, as you said, a result of the redrawing of the middle east map by Europeans, as you opined, but a direct consequence of Ottoman expansionism. Remember please, I am establish first and foremost that you are puddlehead who is constantly talking out of his hat, and second making a point about middle east politics and our unique relationship to Israel, and the Palestinian people.

Getting to the second, conversely to the situation of the Kurds the fact that the Arabs did not gain control over their traditional lands in the levant, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is a direct result of the of European "foreign policy decisions" to make the Arab land a convenient place for dropping off unwanted Jews, by "redrawing the map", and setting up an European mini-state between the Jordan and the Mediteranean.

Since that time Europeans have coddled and supported the dream of being able to keep Europe more or less Judenrein by heavily finanancing and supporting the colonly in the Middle East.

Ergo, Europeans have a direct responsibility and an ongoing direct relationship to the conditions existing there now, while we have a pretty low level of responsibility regarding the conditions of the centuries old annexation of the Kurdish Kingdom by the Turks

This whole Sid Ryan thing is a diversion. CUPE National has taken a strong and honourable stand on the Gaza issue, as refected in Paul Moist's letter to Harper which I cited to open this thread.

Tactical debates - boycott or no, individual academics or institutions - are all fine. There will be loose cannons too (not to mention names), and retractions and changes of position.

But unions like CUPE and CUPW and some others (the CAW almost...) have placed their flag firmly on the side of calling on Canada to help stop the Israeli assault, and to do so unconditionally.

I only wish my union would do the same, but I'm not holding my breath. Still, at the local union level, statements have been issued and activists have participated in actions.

I find it heartening that the usual suspects of Israel supporters have to seize on Sid Ryan and his schtick to blow smoke. It is positions like those of Paul Moist which really bother them. Let's not get caught in their "divide and rule" desperation.

"Kurdsitan has not been a free state since about 1500"

What does that have to do with anything? Palestine has not been a free state since - umm - ever.

Meanwhile Turkey sees fit to massacre Kurds to throw people in jail for even uttering a word of the Kurdish language. 

"Europeans have coddled and supported the dream of being able to keep Europe more or less Judenrein by heavily finanancing and supporting the colonly in the Middle East."

That must be news to the 700,000 French Jews and half a million British Jews etc... European countries are not particularly supportive of Israel at all. The US is - but I don't thnk anyone would call the US "judenrein".

There is nothing particularly European about Israel (unless having a decent standard of living and good roads makes a country "European" - does that mean Japan and Singapore and not Asian but European). The culture is very middle easter. People eat felafel and pita. They just happen to be mostly Jewish insteade of being mostly Muslim - but Judaism is as native to the Middle East as is Christianity or Islam.

 CUPE has an extremely decentralized structure, in which each local
elects its own executive, sets its own dues structure, conducts its own
bargaining and strike votes, and sends delegates to division and
national conventions to form overarching policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Union_of_Public_Employees#cite_note-52006

In May 2006, the Ontario [27] wing of CUPE voted unanimously to pass a resolution to support the “international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions [28] against Israel [29] until that state recognizes the Palestinian [30] right to self-determination.”[2] [31] The three point resolution continued on to call for action to develop an education campaign about the “apartheid nature of the Israeli state [32]”, and for CUPE National to conduct research into Canadian involvement in the occupation. The Canadian Labour Congress [33]
was also enjoined to add its voice "against the apartheid-like
practices of the Israeli state...." The resolution summarized its
reasons for making this call by directly referencing the “Israeli Apartheid Wall [34]”,
and by recognizing the 170 Palestinian groups that have called for the
global campaign. It further noted the voice of its sister union, CUPE
BC, and its opposition to the occupation of Palestine.

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

Text size [35] [35]

May 31, 2006 09:30 AM

CUPE members will have read about the CUPE Ontario vote held at its
annual convention in Ottawa on May 27, 2006, to support a boycott of
Israel.

CUPE National has a policy that was adopted at our 2003 national convention. That policy states that we

• "demand that the Israeli Government immediately withdraw from the occupied territories and abide by UN Resolution 242 and 338";


• "call for and actively work towards an end to all acts of violence
  that take the lives of innocent people, whether they be Palestinian or
  Israeli"; and,


• "help develop a peace process based on equality between Israelis
  and Palestinians and based on the implementation of United Nations
  resolutions and international law."

CUPE National respects the right of its chartered organizations to
take a stand on all issues. As a national union we are governed by
policy resolutions adopted at our national conventions. And as such, we
will not be issuing a call, nor have we been asked by CUPE Ontario to
call upon local unions across Canada to boycott Israel.

CUPE encourages democratic debate on international issues. Debates
focused on the Middle East should respect the legitimate aspirations of
both the Palestinian and Israeli people.

Follow along with the conversation that way you won't have to repeat yourself. Nor will I. See my previous post in response to this idiocy.

1) The conquest of the Arab lands by Israel, and the subsequent subjugation of the Palestinians was a direct result of European foreign policy of the early 20th century.

2) The conquest of Kurdistan by the Turks was completed in 1515, 6 years after Henry the Eighth married Catherine of Aragon. 

Please take notes.

The latter is indirectly supported by some western European interests, and not at all the result of European policies. Israel is an wholey owned franchise of European policy, thought of and implimented at the behest of our government, and our allies.

99.9% of the "arab lands" in the world are in Arab countries. Egypt alone is about 100 times the size of Israel. I'm sure the Kurds would be happy with just one Kurdistan and wouldn't demand 23 countries like the Arabs have.

Precisely Stockholm. This has everything to do with your belief that you have the god given right to come up with reasons why you can decide what other people should do with their stuff. You even believe you can take it from them and give it to others.

Why not, 99% of all of the US is in the USA? 

What is and is not fair, is irrelevant, what is relevant is the pivotal role Europeans had in creating this dilema, and our direct involvement in it. This is why our relationship to Israel is different than that of Kurdistan Turkey, and why we have inordinate interest in it.

We decided to take an interest in it, as governments and political bodies, and this is why it continues to be of direct interest today. Kurdistan is peripheral to our interests. 

Please follow along with your own arguements, at least.

I don't believe in God, so I have no "god given right to anything". All through human history people have migrated, people have displaced each other, people have conquered each other. Almost every war in human history has been caused by two or more people fighting over a piece of land. Last year Hamas and Fatah went to war with each other and Hamas annhilated Fatah in Gaza. From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank was a Jordanian colony.

Everyone knows knows what the answer is in the middle east - a Palestinian state that is more or less based on Gaza and the West Bank and an Israel based on everything else. Its a shame that there has to be so much loss of life when everyone knows what has to be done. I wish that the extremists on both sides would get their head out of the sand and just sign a peace treaty and live happily ever after.

That has nothing to do with your conundrum. Please keep track of what you were saying. What you were asking why we are not calling for a boycott of Turkey, and why people are so interested in Israel, as if you are not -- lol.

I am pointing out that the reason that we have interest in Israel, is because of our "interests" in Israels, and the fact that we caused Israel to come onto existance. We had nothing at all to do with the incorporation of the Kurdish Kingdom into the Ottoman Empire.

Again, Turkey was a US client state during the cold war. Turkish Gladios were apparently reactivated at the start of 2008. The war on democracy continues. And the CIA and western friends have exploited Kurdish elements against Iraq and Iran, two oil-rich nations targeted by the vicious empire for regime change slash crooked oil production sharing agreements for imperialist energy supranationals.

Certainly true Fidel. But the relationship between our policy and situation of the Kurds is indirect, whereas we bear direct responsibility for the situation of the Palestinians.

Furthermore, Israel, has been the no 1 recipient of US foreign aid, since the end of WW II, and our contribution to it, have increased, and while it may be the case that the Kurdish situation is as yet unresolved, the situation in Israel is escalating.

I probably would have supported sanctions against Turkey in 1985, but as of now, there is far less reason to do so. And, in fact, the situation has improved somewhat, largely because the European Union is indirectly boycotting Turkey, by not allowing it to enter the EU, largely because of the treatment of the Kurds -- at least that is the official objection.

On the other hand, the EU, has encouraged Israel, by expanding economic ties with Israel in the same period.

Furthermore, Israel is far more vulenerable to a program of sanctions and boycott than Turkey.

As a gay man, I find Cueball's use of the term 'fellatio' homophobic.

Talk about absurd distractions. Only gay men fellate? Do people ever call you self-centered?

I think sanctions against whole nations of people can get out of hand and tend to hurt the poorest and most vulnerable. I might agree to boycotting Israeli academics professing specific views. It's just beating around the bush though.

As you say, Israel receives more US aid than any other country. It seems Israeli elites are rewarded for their bad behaviour. And the US is curently shipping an unusually large amount of weapons and ammunition to Israel.  

The kind of sanctions needed here are trade sanctions, but not against another desert nation, which would probably end up affecting Palestinians as well. The US has used trade as a weapon on several occasions. Canada and Mexico are important trade partners with the U.S. Ottawa could balk at exporting massive amounts of energy based on climate change inititiatives without even suggesting an ulterior political motive, ie. as  punishment for supporting oppressive regimes.

Again Fidel, sanctions will hardly effect Palestinians, since Israel began slowly embargoing the Palestinian economy at about the same time the Oslo accords came into being. At this time, the two economies are virtually seperate.

That is why almost every single Palestinian activist organization and NGO supports the boycott. There will be no sanctions. That is why people must act to enforce the boycott however they can.

So what exists now is an Israeli blockade of UN agencies and NGO's which cant deliver aid and medical supplies to Gazans under siege. Palestinian medical services are about to collapse according to news reports.

And whatever sanctions are levied against Israel are undermined by US deliveries of several billion dollars worth of aid every year.

And the largest exporter of terrorism to the world never suffers the consequences nor very much suffering at all. Something is wrong with this picture.

The president of the largest Canadian trade union doesn't understand the concept of a boycott.

No wonder the labour movement in this country is so fucked.

No Fidel. The core economy of the region is entirely inside Israel, other than some farming in the West Bank. The primary source of employment for Palestinians, especially Gazans, has traditionally been working inside Israel, increasingly, over the last 20 years Israel has acted to replace those workers with "foreign guest workers", and since 2000, has more or less shut down the movement of Palestinians to work in Israel proper, by the reduction of work permits.

The need for economic aid is a direct result of this policy since it is less and less possible for Palestinians to work in the core economy to which they are attached.

One of the primary purposes of the "seperation barrier" is to stop Palestinian fence jumpers, looking for work, not "militants", just as it is along the Mexican-US border.

Are you kidding me? Moist doesn't even call for an end to the Israeli occupation of Gaza - just a "ceasefire and a renewed commitment to the pursuit of peace"! He is careful to condemn "all acts of violence in the Middle East, including the Hamas rockets being launched into Israel and the Israeli offensive."

Strong and honourable? I think not. This is a mealy-mouthed, pox-on-both-sides, NDP-type statement.

Moist does not support the cause of the Palestinians. His refusal to support the boycott campaign is no mere "tactical" difference - it is a political one. Sid Ryan understands that.

The letter you posted by Denis Lemelin of CUPW [51] is miles away better than Moist's.

So, Cueball, youre saying that Israeli and US restrictions on Palestinian economy and public services are institutional, physical, and administrative. The restrictions go beyond earthen mounds, concrete walls, and militarized checkpoints in strangling Palestinian authority and decision making in general to the point where anything they propose to do hinges on decision making in Tel Aviv and Warshington. I think I understand now.

I am saying that Israel has already sanctioned the Palestinian economy directly by cutting of its dependence on Palestinian labour. As a result Palestinians are largely dependent on international hand-outs, which are now also being interdicted by Israel's policies as enforced by the IDF, and by individual governments such as Canada, which cut off aid when Hamas was elected.

The arguement that sanctions and boycott's against the Israeli economy will end up hurting Palestinians is moot, since it is predicated on the idea that the two economies are symbiotic. This was true at one time. It is not true now, and has not been true for some time.

Gaza, in particular, is pretty much under full sanction now.

Okay. But my point is that Israel has a sugar daddy. That would tend to undermine the effectiveness of sanctions imposed on Israel ie. that same client state which also happens to be the recipient of largest in the world US foreign aid donations to a single country. 

On the other hand, the US economy could be brought down in a few days or weeks with either stemming the flow of oil and total energy exports from Canada to America - or even with trade going the other way - by restrictions of made in USA products and services exported to Canada, the number one importer of finished US products and services. That would be like no form of torture head political hawks in the US would ever have imagined before. They might even get the message to stop exporting terrorism to several other countries, if there was solidarity for international sanctions. In time, Israel would be forced to deal with surrounding countries diplomatically and by negotiations instead of by force.

I see what you are saying, and I don't really object to it theoretically, but really you are explicating the case of what is not at all achieavable in real world politics, in comparison to what could possibly be achieved in the case of Israel, with an effort not far beyond our grasp.

It is the act of cutting up the colonialist tree one root at a time, as opposed to getting a bulldozer and trying to uproot the whole thing at once.

I think you could be right. But in the case of South Africa, for example, the US and friends, Israel too I believe, tended to undermine international sanctions on that country with aid and trade to the point that sanctions were ineffective. Finally toward the end, it took ordinary people around the world to begin asking where their pension funds and savings were being invested. And then demanded that nothing of theirs be invested in apartheid S Africa. It meant somewhere in the neighborhood of $650B a year to South Africa's economy then.

As a soon-to-be-retired CUPE member, all I can say is that Moist and Ryan really have better things to do with their overpaid time than nitpick over something they can't control and have no intention of really engaging, when their real jobs go begging for attention.  This is, and has always been the problem with pork-choppers (if all you vegans out there will forgive the old-school expression). They fancy themselves philosopher-kings, and because there is no member oversight they waste their time on these Kenny vs Spenny antics.  Israel's invasion of Palestine is inexcusable on many levels-what can we do except make our voices heard?  Stop attacking each other, boys, and start attacking the real problem, your personal abhorrence of competition.  It's pathetic! 

Cueball, I am completely disgusted with you. You have no dignity, no shame and absolutely no respect from me at all. I don't care about your thoughts on Moist's position-- I won't even read them. You lost me when you decided to make cheap sexual pun-fun of Paul Moist's name.

The organization I work for works closely with him. I would like to say that he works very hard on behalf of working people and vulnerable people who cannot work and he does not deserve this-- very true about a committed public person who has done much for the community I live in but I can't think of any human being that deserves to be made fun of in this very personal way.

I don't personally know if he has young underage relatives but if any happen to google his name and find your reference, I wish your full name and contact information would be present so that they could seek an explanation from you. He is a public figure while you are an ignorant asshole hiding behind a pseudonym.  If you have any guts at all you should put your full real name beside your disgusting reference or remove it. Better yet, I hope the Mods kick you off this board permanently -- this is way over the top and completely uncalled for.And I hope that they take a position here that this is unacceptable.

And in case you are too ignorant to recognize, a letter from a national president is a document representing the full organization written based on a consensus and rarely do they go as far as anyone would like. But consensus is better than dictatorship and Moist is answerable to a wide group of people on a divisive issue such as this.While you went rudely and personally at him, you have no idea what his personal preference would have been for that letter or which compromises were made to be able to send out a statement asking for the killing to stop. Many organizations and their leaders would not have the courage to come out and say anything at all.

I don't know how to report or reach the mods in this new version of Babble yet so please can someone send a message about this and if you don't mind include my comments. I would be ashamed of Babble if this personal attack on someone not here to defend himself is left to stand.

Jesus fucking Christ.

With the entire mass media and the entire parliamentary political industry in this country unanimously supporting Israel's criminal ethnic cleansing in Gaza, a tiny handful of trade unionists have the nerve to stand up for what's right and they promptly get shat upon by smug bastards posing as progressives.

**Claps hands**  I'm not good with "typing" words.

You know what disgusts me? Fruit and vegetables shaped like genitalia. Somebody do something! What if children walk through a produce section of a grocery?

You know what else disgusts me? Genocide. That's pretty bad too. But please, continue on being outraged at "Moist" and "Fella (tio)". It's important to keep focused on the important things.

Actually I was making fun of "Moist" name as in "wet", as in that press release. There is nothing particularly sexual about it. I then went on to end the sentence with "fella". As an after thought I added "atio" since I am somewhat appalled at the number of people crawling around their knees these days. Moist, as in "wet", has joined that club in the name of what you called consensus.

I am a big fan of consensus. That said, I am also a big fan of "standing up" for what is right, as opposed to "knee crawling" for some alledged consensus. I, personally would have resigned rather than sign that offal. Here is a hint, one good way to prevent a consensus that gives an "equal balance" to the views of those who support fascist causes, ethnic cleansing and mass murder, is to try and keep those people out of your organization, another good way is to assert the basic solvency of first principles, which have already been established.

I really hope some children do come here and set you straight because even a child can tell you that 100 for 1 is not a "fair" exchange. They learn that in the schoolyard playing with baseball cards. You and the wet one, though, would have the teachers standing around muttering about "condemning both sides" and being appalled at a little sexual innuendo, while little Josh is cutting off little Mustafa's head at recess.

Furthermore, I am not such a fuckwit as to believe that when the wet one, uses the word "I" under the CUPE -- National letterhead, he does not mean "I", as in "I will be using my influence in any debates on such a resolution to oppose its adoption." As opposed to "we", as in: 'That policy states that we: “Demand that the Israeli Government immediately withdraw from the occupied territories and abide by UN Resolutions 242 and 338;"' .

I was born at night, brother, but not last night. 

Therefore, I call bullshit on your "consenus" defence. Moist is stepping out and personally challenging Sid, as the national president, and making a statement from the privilege of the sexecutive, just as Sid enounciated his personal views, from the position of his own sexecutive privilege, as the head of CUPE Ontario.

The wet one could simply have let sleeping dogs lie, in the name of solidarity, and said nothing, or been evasive about Sid's statement in the name of inter-union solidarity and decided not to call the head of CUPE -- Ontario onto the mat for speaking out on an issue external to the union. He could have said, "Sid is speaking his mind, as the head of CUPE -- Ontario, but I will say that the Union is a diverse body, committed to blah blah blah and blah blah blah and the opinions of the membership vary on this issue, and has passed no such resolutions."

That would have fairly represented a careful and minimally divisive consensus position. But no, the wet one decided to use his executive privilege to directly attack the head of CUPE Ontario, disregarding notions of inter-Union fraternal solidarity. This apparently, not so much because of a groundswell of outrage from the membership, but because a few Zionist party aparatchiks have spent the last few days buttonholing and intimidating the national leadership directly, as Ohara makes clear in his post near the top of this thread.

I hear there is a run on knee pads going on up at the Ottawa area "Home Depot", perhaps you better get on up there and get yourself some before they run out.

You still lost me at that part where you decided a personal sexual attack in order to gratify your personal need to make a joke is what this place is about. I don't at all see why you think you got any credibility with that. I also notice that you began discussion in this thread entirely content-free with respect to the issue you pretend to care about and exclusively on the topic of your personal joke.

Call me any names you like and I can respond in kind but to do that to people who are not here so they might find out later once the thread closes, you won't be accused of having any honour.

As for trying to suggest that because other people are dying overseas you should get to hide behind them in order to gratify your need to make cheap personal sexual jokes is no respect to them either unless you somehow think that your joke was the whole point and the war crimes going on over there is a sideshow. You think you diminish Moist in this but in fact you diminish everyone here along with your argument. If you care about the people in the Mid East so much perhaps you should wander off and let some others speak on their behalf-- you aren't helping.

Oh and I stand behind my comment-- holders of an office when speaking for an organization and using the I word cannot just say absolutely anything they please and while he did not go far enough for you there is nothing wrong with what he did say. I don't have to agree with collective punishment on all Israeli academics to be opposed to collective punishment from the Israeli army on Palestinians. Further, I don't want to be held personally responsible for Stephen Harper and his wars either.

Having slept on it I also stand behind my preference that people who behave like you should not be allowed to be on this board. This is not your first time and you can't exactly claim ignorance about the policies of this place having been around a while. There are many discussions that would do just fine without being brought down to your level.

And I frankly "would walk with the boys, rather than ride with GM," and if that means being bounced from this web site for impolite behaviour in the face of your craven cowardice in taking a position, dressed up as Protestant propriety, so be it.

And Moist was not speaking from a "consensus", he was engaging in personal commentary based in his sexecutive privilege. He states that in his letter. Your attempt to mislead on that point is a patent fraud.  

Your behaviour in this thread has been over the top rude Cueball. I hope the moderators take some action.  Edkited to remove my super powers.

I am glad to see that we are all in agreement on the subject of this thread :-)

It is unfort that this is merely another instance of Sid speaking his mind, being spanked and now backtracking.

Yes brother Sid has backtracked from calling for a ban on individuals to institutions.

It seems very clear that big Paul spoke and Little Sid crumbled

I see. You "had" that done did you. Didn't know you "had" the power to order them about so.

Learn something new every day.

If its not distracting from the issue by calling people anti-semitic for calling out Israel on its war crimes, it's formalizing consent, as Skdadl used to say, by trying to get people banned for not conforming to Protestant norms of a-sexuality. 

Rather try and censor a suffix in a sentence than condemn a war crime: "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene.
 

"Had" she have read "hope".

Nice job of switching the subject to excuse your behaviour. 

 I preferred "had", I could practically hear Terry Thomas in the inflection.

Then maybe both of our hopes will come true. I emailed a mod and await judgement.

I am wondering whose spanking "big" Paul. 

Well in the mean time, while "awating judgement", it might be Christian of you to condemn a war crime or two, or even forward an opinion about the thread topic. Such, might be constructive.

Or are your interests merely directed at ensuring that any hint of sexual inuendo should be eliminated from the discourse?

I think a lot has been made over a perhaps clumsy and poorly worded one-liner, whose underlying message (that Moist's mealy-mouthed response was craven and unprincipled) is largely correct.

Oh, Cueball. I have stated my opposition to the Israeli invasion of the Gaza. Must I do it before every statement I make on this board in order to please you.

Catchfire, there is more than on comment; it is Cueball's pattern of posting in this thread.

Please. Don't. I really want to see how far they are going to row out into the sea of irrelevancy.

So Cueball, how exactly did your suggesting that people with whom you are disagreeing with are on their knees giving blowjobs orward the debate?

What I see is mostly a meaningless exchange between Cueball and Stockholm (as most exchanged with Stockholm usually are) with the occasional interjection by a few new babblers who are soberly against the occupation but harbour a few concerns that any objection to the occupation might result in wide-spread anti-semitism.  Add a sprinkling of attempts to get the thread back on topic and then we are hit with Sean's impassioned tirade on behalf of Mr. Moist, which includes a smear against any babbler posting with an alias. Highly tacky behaviour on an internet message board, despite the good points SiO might make. Then the thread switches to whether or not Cueball is a horrible character or not, specifically or in general, and now here we are, talking about basically nothing at all.

However, your mileage, as you're fond of saying, Caissa, may vary.

You mean pointing out that Moist's statement is purely couched as personal comment, as opposed to the misleading suggestion that it results from some kind of organizational consensus, as alledged by those offended at my "bad taste"?

JPJ, is at least clear on the fact that Moist is asserting his personal executive perogative to shape the "consensus", not merely "expressing" the consensus as an organizational representative.

I should think you would be more concerned about an outright attempt at putting misleading "spin" on clear and evidenced facts, as opposed to the forthright language used to point out what it is: Spin, intended to avert Moist from taking personal responsibility for his statement of his opinions, by suggesting he is expressing the consensus of the CUPE -- National membership, as a whole. 

Cueball is a homophobe.

I assume we're talking about homosexuals?  Or is it women?

They're the ones usually "bending over" and "blowing" and stuff.

It's a bad thing, I gather, to do these things.

Oh, I know, I know.  "Stay focused!  This is about ISRAEL", not about whether using fellatio as "The Big Bad" is progressive.  No time for such pedantry!

As a gay man I guess I'll just "suck it up".  Feel free to have whatever progressive fun you want to with that.  

It is called UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights for a reason. But on thread after thread, there is this that or the other person who must make a statement claiming to be for the human rights of Palestinians, while in the same breath being homophobic, or anti-Darfurian, or anti-Tibetan, or anti-this that and the other thing or defending a Stalinist, anti-Charter bigot like Sid Ryan. 

It is called the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights. 

Way to go Moist. People in my union local who take an interest in international affairs think Ryan is a loudmouth idiot. And perhaps maybe an anti-Semite though there is no definite proof of that yet. But suspiciously, the only group he singles out happens to be 80-90% Jewish.  

It is called the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights. Last time I checked that meant gay people too. And Tibetans and Tamils. And Israelis.

P.S. Did I write that Cueball is a fucking homophobe?

Yes, you did. And you can write it all day long, but no matter how many times you write it, it will still remain a smear, without foundation in anything I said. 

The statement was not gendered. Sorry, to break it to you. Suspect what you like.

Your suspicions, are just that. Suspicions. I have a lot of suspicions about the real feelings of the nameless ones who visit this board. I find it best to stick to the clear and evident facts of what is being said, not what I suspect is being said or implied.

Right now for example, I am suspecting that you perhaps associate anyone who defends causes which are associated with Muslims as being latently homophobic, because you have bought into a bunch of crap about Muslims being particularly homophobic in comparison to the Christian and Jewish counterparts, or our "civilized" secular society, and by association are painting me with your bigotted brush. Israel is after all considered by some to be the real champion of gay rights in the middle east, by many, is it not?

Is that the case? I have no idea. What is that suspicion worth? Nothing at all.

What I do know is the fellatio is not gendered, nor was that statement.

Deal with it.

Moist has stated what most union members and progressive Canadians most likely think about the issue (see first post). That has been expressed time and again by the NDP and others.

Rabble front page has an article today by Linda McQuaig calling for Canada to return to playing its neutral peacemaker role. That is what most Canadians feel appropriate. I have never seen any polling data to contradict that.

Babble threads on this issue just happen to be dominated by a small minority of more extreme left individuals not representative of the majority of progressive thinking in Canada at the moment.

They just make a lot of noise. But Moist is where most people are located on this issue from every poll I have ever seen and every even limited conversation I have ever had on the subject.

P.S. It is called the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights for a reason. Moist gets that reason. Unfortunately many others here do not.

Now I will apply my 11-foot pole rule - not to touch this issue again with an 11-foot pole, like most Canadians I know.

What most Canadians feel is not necessarily right. If activist people spent all there time just trying to replicate the feelings of majority opinion, gay rights would still be at a standard of the 19th century.

Your appeal is just an appeal to the authority of what (you think) most people feel is an appeal to the dictatorship of the majority, regardless of "human rights". In fact, the whole point of things such as the declaration of human rights, is to protect the minority from the opinion of the majority, by asserting a legal standard of "right" beyond simple opinion.

It's you who don't get it.

So everyone is doing it now?  Really?

I remember when it was only women and gay men.  In fact (and this may be hard for you to imagine in this new era of universal fellatio) it used to be that insinuating that someone performed fellatio or was the recipient of anal sex was a great way to imply that they were either a homo or a girl, but definitely not a man.

So I'll ask again.  Are you saying that Moist is a fag, or a chick? 

Speaking as a bisexual, I think Cueball's reference to fellatio was in poor taste, but no more so than I would find someone's declaration that Moist "sucks".  However, Cueball remains, in my opinion, the most well-informed participant on Babble, his arguments are by far the most cogent, and his ethical priorities are unassailable.  His depth of clarity regarding the occupation of Palestine is an invaluable asset for this board.  I'm rather disgusted by the personal attacks being launched against him.

Anyone can do it, yes.

Thanks. I appreciate that statement.

Snert's comment about women and gay men did seem to exclude bisexuals (that is, men like me), men involved in same-sex experimentation, men who don't define their sexual identity according to traditional hetero/homo/bi categories, heterosexual male victims of sexual exploitation, etc.

Exaclty. I generally identify as heterosexual. Interesting that people assume that I am. I won't say anymore about my identity politics. I came to the conclusion that identity politics on anonymous internet forums is particularly fruitless, since anyone can say what they like about who they are, and no one can really prove anything.

While I think that calling Cueball a homophobe is a bizarre overstatement at best and crude character assasination at worst, it might be prudent to admit that accusing men of gay sex acts is socially rooted in homophobia. Of course, this is all distraction from the desperate attempt at Mr. Moist to, appropriately, water down the CUPE position from the courageous, principled stand of Mr. Ryan to one that is more expedient in the criminal political climate in which we are imprisoned.

Catchfire: It is true that suggesting that men are engaging in what are considered gay sex acts is rooted is homophobia, traditionally speaking, but it is not neccessarily so, given that anyone can do it. Having said that it might be prudent to admit that framing that cautionary statement in terms of it being an "accussation" could also be deemed to be rooted in the same.

I think some people are using accusations of homophobia as a proxy for their own discomfort with people criticizing Israel. It's far easier to call someone a homophobe and dismiss them than it is to articulate a defence of the indefensible.

My understanding is that the vast majority of CUPE members are municipal public service employees across Canada. So why is Ryan making a big deal about ACADEMICS from Israel. Its not as if he is head of the Canadian Federation of Students of is from a union representing teaching staff at universities. I could MAYBE see him put forth a policy about putting pressure on Israel that is at least remotely linked to what municipalities do - such as demanding that Canadian cities end any twinning arrangments with Israeli cities (ie: no more junkets between Sudbury and Ramat Gan or whatever) or even asking that municipalities divest. Or demanding that the TTC not give any advice to its opposite number in Tel Aviv. I don't necessarily agree with it - but it would at least reflect the spirit of what CUPE actually does.

At a time of economic collapse when CUPE members across Canada will probably face wage roll-backs and layoff etc...I'm sure a lot of CUPE members must think there are better things for Ryan to be doing with his time than trying to be a player in the conflict in the Middle East. 

Good question Cue I am not sure. The mainstream press is almost unanimous against Sid. It may have been internal pressure from CUPE members.

Cueball: I hear what you're saying, but your post did seem to suggest that fellatio was a negative thing to do.  I mean, there are several ways of interpreting your statement that "Moist is an appropriate name for this fella-tio": (1) you may have been positively evaluating fellatio, suggesting your approval of Moist; (2) you may been negatively evaluating fellatio, suggesting disapproval of Moist; or (3) you may have been either neutrally evaluating fellatio or avoiding any evaluation of fellatio at all.  Option (1) seems to be ruled out by your clear disapproval of Moist, and Option (3) would seem to make your post utterly pointless.  Unless I'm missing an option, which is altogether possible, it seems that Option  (2) is only viable interpretation of your remark.  Again, I think this is pretty tame stuff, especially in the context of Moist's apparent collusion with what now seems to be an all-out genocide in Gaza, but it is distasteful. 

M.Spector: I concur.

I suggest that reffering to someone giving someone else head in this context is generally a reference to someone servicing someone else for the sake of political expediency or financial reward. As in someone prostituting themselves, or their ideals at the pleasure of someone else.

This is a common rendering of these ideas in power politics.

"Moist's apparent collusion with what now seems to be an all-out genocide in Gaza, but it is distasteful."

When is any war NOT considered "genocide" then? Would you also call it a genocide when Hamas fires rockets into Israel and kills some civilians? Every time there is a skirmish between India and Pakistan over Kashmir - is it a "genocide". By my reckoning there Gaza has a population of something like 1,500,000 and over the past two weeks the death toll has been about 900 - in other words 0.0006% of the population. If Israel was actually trying to have an "all-out genocide" in Gaza than at this rate they will succeed in killing everyone in about 150 years - assuming no new births or other population growth.

900 deaths are still 900 deaths too many, but when you start gratuitously calling everything a genocide then if everything is genocide - nothing is genocide.

But its not a war. Its a simple massacre. No more than the slaughter of the so called the spear carrying Tibetans by the gattling gun toting British in 1908 was a "war". No more than the massacre of Native Americans by the US cavalry was a war.

Hillaire Belloc

It is adults strangling children as the desperate creatures instinctively pummel their little hands against their assailant, and the adults claiming that the useless blows are tantamount to an assault that justifies the murder.

My comment is not a smear on those who use aliases in general -- it is if you like the word -- a smear on those who use them as a  starting place for uncalled for personal attacks on individuals that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I think the purpose of the alias is to allow people to express opinions about public events and policy anonymously not protection against comments that could otherwise invite legal action. The purpose of an alias is not for sniping at individuals from behind cover it is to allow free expression of ideas in a safe and comfortable forum.

I don't think that such comments about people by name is a place this board wants to go. The fact that Cueball is attacking someone by name when his own name is withheld is relevant and worthy of a reminder of the privilege of posting here without disclosing our names publicly. This means having manners when referring to individuals who are not here to defend themselves.

Individuals like Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff? Are you telling me that when a public figure like Paul Moist writes an open letter stating the political position of a national union in a highly contentious issue that we are not allowed to attack him?

You have an interesting interpretation of public discourse.

Cueball what is wrong with sticking to posts like this? Here you manage to make a point without a personal attack and without offence. Others have attacked Moist's letter and his position with anger but have not gone into extreme offensive personal attacks. What I am reacting to is your entry into this thread with no content other than your personal attack- it wasn't even in the context of a longer post that made a point about the subject you say you care about-- that had to come later. Since we have not seen a Mod response this is harder to let go and move on from as I think this is a very negative turn for this place. 

I do not like the way you feel it is appropriate to go at someone in such a personal way-- do you really think that makes people willing to get into the debate and argue with you-- or even to support you? It is the kind of thing that makes people want to measure their 11 foot poles to not get close to the discussion. Do you think that serves a purpose on behalf of people who are suffering? It is hard not to conclude that you used this situation to indulge yourself in rude humour rather than the rude humour to make a point.

After your attack on an individual, have you considered that some might be reluctant to want to associate with your position in this thread because that could be interpreted as endorsing your behaviour rather than just your opinion on an important topic?

I find it interesting that it is so difficult for some to separate an impassioned attack on an issue from a gratuitous personal attack without any reference to the issue until later.

And if you are trying to win friends on a left of centre board then it is a little less controversial to make personal attacks against a right wing PM without any redeeming work on behalf of what we care about than a person who labours on behalf of public services, public medicare etc. Moist is one of our own-- Harper is not. But I still would be uncomfortable if the comment was made about Harper.

Sean, with respect, if you think that Cueball's one-liner is a 'gratuitous personal attack', you haven't spent much time on the internet. I suspect, rather, that you know and possibly like Moist and are letting your own personal feelings get in the way of impartial interpretation. It was hardly worth your time, to be honest.

This is the most bizarre display of faux outrage I've seen in a long time. So much bandwidth for an innocuous throw-away line.

Sean seems far more concerned about the possibility of Moist's feelings being hurt than concern for the gutless pandering to the Zionist provocateurs shown in that statement.

We know the agents of Israel are very active in perception management around the world, including internet forums. This whole blowjob "controversy" looks more like an attempt to silence a vocal and knowledgeable critic of Israeli genocide than any genuine concern over the hurt feelings of a public figure, or most absurdly, that figures imaginary "offspring" whom may or may not use google. Fucking ridiculous.

To those arbiters of internet propriety who want Cueball banned, I hope the moderator's response will be "You gotta be kidding me. Fuck off". 

Who ever mentioned banning?

Oh, for cripes sakes, Sean, stay on topic or stay out of the thread.  Moist is a public figure and as such people have a lot more latitude when it comes to him than to private citizens, just as they do with politicians.

Cueball, babblers have had discussions in the past about using sexual metaphors like "fellatio" in a derogatory way.  I don't know what the consensus was, but we could maybe discuss that in a new thread.  I'm open to the idea that it, just like derogatory referrals to anal sex, could be considered problematic since it's generally men who are the "recipients" and women or gay men who are the providers.  Anyhow, it's not worth derailing half of a thread over it when people could easily start a new thread to discuss the issue. 

SCC is banned. Bad enough that he's a concern troll, but he's crossed the line into irrelevant personal attacks in order to derail a thread about an issue he's been concern-trolling about since he got here. Buh-bye.

This thread doesn't appear to be about what it was originally about anymore, so it's closed.

It is not just that-- I also like this place and do not like the idea that this forum be used as a starting point for personal attacks that are otherwise quite content-free. I have said this before.

Also, I have met Moist and benefit from work he has done. He may or may not know who I am-- we are not personal friends. However, I would always think twice about going after allies in this way. In terms of many of the things we are trying to achieve - he is strong supporter and I think the left spends far to much time ripping each other down.

I work a lot in the area of fighting the privatization of medicare and in that context Mr. Moist has won my respect. Enough that if I were to be angry with him for soemthing I would not lead with a personal attack.

If you believe in something other than a right-wing vision of Canada a little restraint in going after people in such an unecessary personal way we disagree with that are basically on our side might be a better tactic even if you do not believe in manners. To compare him to Harper is just absurd as Harper has contributed to nothing I beleive in or that other people here believe in.

Mods-- is this kind of attack really serving a purpose here?