Parliament to vote on Tory motion against free speech

I think if you read through the threads on babble attempting to pillory the aforementioned NDP MPP you will see that you make a completely unsubstantiated claim in saying the she supported the motion. A voice vote does not record the way individual members vote. The Star was wrong to describe the vote as unanimous and you are wrong to base your assumption on that story; unless of course you wish to cannabalize one of your own (arguably the most left leaning NDP member) on the basis of not standing up to denounce the motion. But then you have a different problem, why single out DiNovo and not any other NDP members present?

You see I can use histrionics and disingenuous terms for rhetorical effect too. In fact back in my early poststructuralism days I used to call it rhetorical terrorism when we  would deploy language and neologisms that were virtually impenetrable to most folks including ourselves and, thereby, effectively foreclosing debate. Perhaps you could contact the NDP MPPs present and ask how they voted.

Now perhaps your problem is that the NDP MPP spoke to Shurman's motion and agreed with his problematizing the use of the term apartheid, and thereby is becomes associatively linked to lending support to Shurman's entire motion and interestingly she is now linked to supporting the federal Conservative yet to be tabled motion as well. And, of course she is inevitably linked to Zionist neoliberal imperialist brutalizing expansionist hegemony, not to mention McCarthyism sarcmark!

The irony of course that everyone missed is that she was putting into practice what she was calling us to do. The ethical starting point for dialogue, even, perhaps especially, in the face of your enemy must be compassion, grace, forgiveness, openness and honesty. A starting point in a dialogue is to acknowledge a common ground and work towards controversy, pain, restitution. In her remarks, she immediately acknowledged the need to speak the truth about the occupation, about the need to have a two state solution. etc. This was not a denial of the atrocities in Gaza. There is nothing in her position that deviates from federal NDP policy. 

She in your words "calls into question" whether the use of the term apartheid is the best way to work toward constructive dialogue. This is not censorship, this is not McCarthyism. It is disagreement. It is using free speech to attempt to keep speech open. 

There are good reasons to use the term apartheid, but I would argue the term is problematic for reasons beyond DiNovo's charge that it is needlessly incendiary. I believe the term is monologic.  Speak freely as long as your speech is circumscribed by the narrow confines of the term apartheid, which has a certain geopolitical specificity. The word, in effect, intimidates the speaker and forecloses debate. And by erasing dialogue, one is left with only with monologue. The term alienates many, but I guess has the advantage to rallying moral amongst the converts. So by all means use the term, but being challenged (from a position of never having any power to stop you from doing so) on your use of the term is not repression; it's debate. Defensive disproportionate hysteria as a response to being challenged to defend your use of such an inflammatory term is the true assault on reasonable debate.

You eviscerated one of your potential allies in the political spectrum, when you could have just presented a sound rebuttal as to why it is necessary and important to use the term apartheid in that particular struggle. For what it's worth, not much I'm sure, you would have held on to my respect.

To synthome: Instead of inventing potential excuses for Cheri DiNovo, why don't you let her explain for herself?

Unless you were in the Legislature at the time, what evidence do you have that Cheri DiNovo didn't vote for this motion? Until you have something -- even a denial from DiNovo herself -- I'll take the press gallery report at its word.

Her speech in the Legislature against Israeli Apartheid Week and her comments to the Toronto Star served the same purpose of the motion, and if anything, it was even more harmful than a simple vote of agreement.

Cheri DiNovo was there, she voted with everyone else, she spoke to the media about, and she confirmed her stance via e-mail. Personally, I contacted all NDP MPPs about the issue; the only other to reply was Andrea Horwath, and she issued a statement of disagreement. A key point, here, is that DiNovo's stance undermines the very important work of activists working to end Israeli apartheid -- and it is apartheid. Further, her stance plays into the Zionist-created chilly climate on campuses against free speech, debate, and legitimate criticism. DiNovo sets us back whether she deviates from NDP policy or not. And note that NDP policy may not use the term "apartheid" but nor does it condemn it. As a long-time activist and close friend of mine recently wrote, "The object of the campaign waged by Conservatives like Peter Shurman provincially or Stephen Harper federally, is to de-legitimize any criticism of Israeli policies. In short: to silence and curtail the movement for justice and isolate the movement for solidarity." There is a growing chorus that affirms the applicability of the term "apartheid" to Israel. It is accurate and, while some may find it "inflammatory," it is hardly a marginal position. Jimmy Carter, Michael Ignatieff, Ehud Barak, Desomnd Tutu: All of them have applied the term to Israel. DiNovo must re-think her position and retract it.

@rick_t: My point was simply a procedural one. All that can be established in a voice vote is the presence of a member at the vote. Whether NDP members voiced there agreement with the motion when asked by the speaker, or whether they disagreed with the motion, or whether they let the motion pass in silence is in no way demonstrable unless it is substantiated. Agreeing with a portion of a motion is not tantamount to supporting the entire motion.

I don't disagree with you that the neocon agenda is pretty much what you've stated. I simply don't believe that there are only two possible positions here. I don't believe the only way to side with the oppressed whether workers, refugees, Palestinians is to elevate their victimhood to the status of a sublime untouchable object. The hysterical Left, for me, has always lacked an ethics of love and compassion, stemming I believe from their rabid materialism and total rejection of transcendentality, which I'm not sure is to be found in Marx himself. Peace...

The hyperbole of the title does noting to enhance the credibility of the proponents of IAW.  The legislation does not propose that no one has the right to refer to Israel as an "apartheid" speech legally. They are voting on expressing a moral condemnation of it. I can't count the number of times that some on the extreme Left have misused the tem "McCarthyism" and it's gotten to the point where these claims just stop being taken seriously. This legislation bears no honest comparison to"Mccarthyism" where people were prosecuted and imprisoned. Where employers were prevented from hiring people based on their political affiliation. This hasn't happened here.  There's also a failure here to recognize that there are differences of opinion, even on the left, about whether the "apartheid" label is appropriate for Israel and whether doing so is a counter-productive strategy. I think Israel's proponents could have an equal or better claim to McCarthyism on the left if you consider some of the tactics used to prevent their point of view from being spread, such as the violent prevention of Netanyahu's speaking at Concordia a few years back and some of the threats made against Daniel Pipes at York U.

To counter the idea that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, rational discourse and conversation might work better than ideologically driven rants and name-calling. Israel has done much wrong to the Palestinians. But to say that all the wrong-doing is one-sided is self-defeating. To single out Israel and ignore the worse human rights records of its immediate neighbors makes the left sound like hypocrites. And to ignore Israel's legitimate concerns about its security from neighbouring states that fail to recognize its right to exist and groups like Hamas that in fact do include anti-Semitic references in its founding charter only gives more ammunition to those who would characterize the IAW and its supporters as a group of extremists and bigots.

Re-read the blog post:

Corvin has argued that this motion is part of a coordinated strategy to shut down debate, not that the motion will accomplish this alone.

And now we have seen the evidence, with the Toronto District School Board citing the motion in the Ontario Legislature as justification for banning Israeli Apartheid Week events from its schools:

But it's still not McCarthyism.

Use of tax-funded facilities for something that is deemed by many to be unfair and bigotted is not deprivation of free speech, particularly when it is currently being openly debated in newpapers, the media, indeed here right now.

And there is a certain hypocrisy in people who support the one-sided condemnation of Israel that IAW espouses complaining about the lack of debate. IAW is not a debate about whether Isreal is an apartheid state but an assertion that it is in the face of a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. Where exactly is the debate within the IAW programming other than to debate how to attempt to de-legitimize Israel?

Obviously you've never been to an IAW event, if you think debate is not allowed. You should really consider attending an event you're going to criticize.

McCarthyism: the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, esp. in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

"unfair allegations" is an entirely subjective description in this instance. While the allegations of anti-Semitism may not be accurate in all cases, IAW seems to be willfully blind to the idea that by singling out the Jewish homeland for what its supporters feel are "unfair" allegations while ignoring far worse misdeeds on the part of others in its region and by ignoring violence on the side of Hamas it creates the appearence of bias and anti-Semistism. This is compounded by an apparent siding with Hamas, which is unquestionably anti-Semitic in its founding charter, which makes references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and "conspiracies among Zionists, Freemasons and the Rotary Club", giving the distinct impression that anti-Semitism is part of IAW.

And please enlighten me as to which of the listed speakers at which event said that Israel is not an apartheid state and that the BDS campaign is a wrong approach? I'd be very interested in which of the events such a "debate" occurred.

And here's something to mull over, would you agree or disagree that the opponents of IAW have been able to create a very effective impression of its being extremist and unreasonable in the public mind, rendering IAW counter-productive to promoting Palestinian rights, since IAW's noteriety is making it easier to paint the Palestinian cause with the brush of extremism and racism? And when you consider that, think of The Ontario Legislature saying such, and the Manitoba and national legislatures about to do the same.

People who bang their heads against walls (no pun intended) need to find another approach. It's usually the head and not the wall that gets hurt.

synthome, you have it quite backwards. it was cheri di novo who betrayed and alienated her allies, not the other way around.