Canada-Israel Committee counters criticism of Israel with homophobic tweet

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle
Canada-Israel Committee counters criticism of Israel with homophobic tweet

They removed it after they got complaints, but luckily, someone was on their toes and got a screen capture of a homophobic remark the Canada-Israel Committee posted about Libby Davies on Twitter.

Quote:

Davies' goofy views must be denounced - Province ed reminds Libby mouthy lesbians aren't wanted in #Gaza

What morons.  And who does the Canada-Israel claim to represent on Twitter?

Quote:

The CIC is the official rep of the organized Jewish community on matters re Canada-Israel relations.

Apparently the CIC doesn't like "mouthy lesbians" much either!  Which isn't that big a surprise.  After all, they're working hard to try to make sure "mouthy" queers who speak out against Israeli apartheid are silenced during Pride. 

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Damn, looks like someone didn't read the memo about the "pinkwash" campaign. I am anxiously awaiting the non-stop press coverage demanding immediate resignations.

Unionist

Just to complete the picture, [url=http://www.theprovince.com/Editorial+Davies+goofy+views+must+denounced/3... is the editorial[/url], entitled "Davies' goofy views must be denounced", - and I think I need to break our usual rule of not linking to obscenity and hate, otherwise one can't really understand this story:

Quote:

One wonders if Vancouver East MP Libby Davies has ever imagined what her life would be like if she lived in the Gaza Strip, or in nearly any other Muslim territory.

As an extremely left-wing, outspoken, lesbian woman, there's a very good chance that if she hadn't been murdered already for everything she represents — either by the state or possibly her family — she'd long ago have been buried away in some dark cell, out of sight and mind, to prevent her ideas or example from spreading to others.

So, the CIC will no doubt defend themselves (if anyone challenges them - but no one will, especially not Libby's leader) by saying they were merely describing the editorial, not their own view of Libby. But as I said, no one except a few insignificant people like Rick Telfer and other oddballs, like us, would step forward on just a jokey harmless little jab like this, right?

But seriously - shouldn't Jack Layton hold a press conference to defend his Deputy Leader against being called a "mouthy lesbian", and demand that the CIC identify and take action against whoever posted that - besides the NDP taking its own action?

ottawaobserver

Well, given that I posted this story to the other thread hours ago, I would have thought there would have already been a letter-writing campaign organized to the CIC.  But apparently, they're not the target, again it's Jack Layton who's fallen down by not calling a news conference to criticize them.

skdadl

I read that editorial earlier today. It seemed to me to be just short of an outright warning, to Libby, to lesbians and gays, to women, to the left generally -- be grateful we haven't put you in jail. Yet.

Maybe the mindlessly conventional don't realize how close to fascism they come with that argument, but really, a fair translation of what they're saying to us would be something like, "Look here, you weirdos: we tolerate your sort in Canada. So STFU. Or ..." Or forking what?

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

Well, given that I posted this story to the other thread hours ago, I would have thought there would have already been a letter-writing campaign organized to the CIC.  But apparently, they're not the target, again it's Jack Layton who's fallen down by not calling a news conference to criticize them.

The CIC are an abomination and should be condemned for their day-to-day work. No, OO, I don't write letters of protest to the CIC or CJC, because they are neither government nor someone I have any hope of influencing. I do, however, write letters to the editor on occasion, and articles in union bulletins, and posts on discussion boards, condemning their activities, because my audience is real people, not enemies.

Having said that, explain to me why Jack Layton should not stand up and condemn these people publicly - if only to defend: (a) his Deputy Leader; and (b) respect for LGBTQ folks.

 

ottawaobserver

But you know, skdadl, queer Davenport Liberal Mario Silva made the very same argument in his year-ender with the Capital Xtra Politics Blog "Hill Queeries":

Quote:

Q: Have you weighed in on the Pride Toronto debate?
A: I think the Pride committee is doing the right thing by saying no to the hate mongering of the Queers for Israeli Apartheid. It's a total distortion of reality - Israel is the only country in the Middle East that gives protection to gays and lesbians, so I find that it's just absurd, it's wrong, it's falsehoods, and it has nothing to do with advocating and a celebration of Pride, which all of us want to be doing. This is going to be a great event in Toronto, and I look forward to participating again this year, and we should all be proud of our community and the efforts that have gone, but we shouldn't allow for a small minority group within the community or people who want to associate themselves with the community to hijack what has been now, traditionally a fantastic Pride Day event.

Q: And you're not concerned about the censorship complaints?
A: I'm not concerned about that at all. I think what they're doing is spreading falsehoods in the first place, so there's no merit to their statements, and I certainly can't support that. I think the Pride Committee is absolutely right and in compliance with the city's guidelines, and I'm very much support of the actions taken by the Pride Committee, and the City of Toronto has taken some real initiative, both from the Mayor and even the people who are running for mayor, have all shown solidarity around this issue. So I think this is a minority group within the community, who may not be members of the community but want to affiliate themselves with the community, and hijack an event that is overall one of the most successful events in the city of Toronto.

Now, I'm pretty sure the journalist mis-transcribed the answer, because it's Queers *against* IA, but apart from that ...

skdadl

Oh, for fork's sake. Could "some" forking babblers leave their forking egos at the forking door, just once, just once, and discuss the forking topic at forking hand without turning everything into a forking battle amongst their forking selves? This place is so forking impossibly meta I cannot cope, I truly cannot.

ottawaobserver

Unionist, I'm sure he's picking his moment, and looking forward to it.

remind remind's picture

This is really unbelievable, in this day and age...

... not only that, its implications to the Pride Toronto Board are significant, as they pandered to an entity that is essentially spreading hate in respect to lesbians......

 

Bob Rae should be ashamed, as should all those on CIC. A formal apology has to happen and swiftly....

Michelle

Her Facebook page is also being spammed by Islamophobic and hateful trolls.

You know, it's funny.  Cheri DiNovo whined something awful to the media about how she was oh so persecuted on Facebook, and how that persecution from "the left" or from supporters of Palestinians was so terrible.  And even still, she doesn't allow any comments on her items from her "friends" on Facebook, perhaps so she isn't tempted to take another midnight tantrum on her own Facebook page.

Meanwhile, everyone who posted on DiNovo's page actually posted thoughtful and intelligent posts, asking her in the spirit of solidarity to reconsider.  And it's true, they were persistent.  They made strong arguments.  But they never personally attacked her, never said anything personally hurtful.  Then she went off the deep end and accused the people who were posting polite but persuasive arguments on her FB wall of phoning her at home with death threats.

All I can say is, Cheri should count her lucky stars that the activists posting on her wall didn't treat her the way the apartheid-supporting trolls who are posting on Libby's wall are treating her.  Here's how some supporters of Israel consider an acceptable way to address a Canadian politician on their Facebook wall:

Quote:

Barry TheGreat DON'T YOU THINK LIBBY DAVIES LOOKS LIKE A COW??? MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Quote:

Barry TheGreat FACT: Muslims kill any one in their way including innocent Christians, how can you support such barbaric actions as well as falsely criticize the only Democratic country in the middle east? LEAVE THE NDP YOU WITCH!!!

Quote:

Ravid Rom
she wont care about lesbians or gays getting killed. she wont care about israelis getting killed either. she wont care about hundreds of people getting killed in Kyrgyzstan. she wont care about hundreds of refugees from Sudan getting killed in Egypt. she didn't even care about 6 millions jews getting killed by the nazis. her first ridicilous goal : get rid of the Israeli state.
long live israel.♥



Quote:

Ilona Jonnele Islamic law is unconstitutional. Its
institutionalized discrimination against other religions violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments; its institutionalized discrimination against women
violates the Fourteenth Amendment; its institutionalized punishment against
adulterers, homosexuals, etc., violates the Eighth Amendm...ent. Etc., etc., etc.
Why do we need another law? Let's enforces the laws on the books.

Quote:

Doug Duichlas Sather I want you to resign as an MP. You SHAME US ALL.

Quote:

Ravid Rom: You should thank israel that 9 of the attackers were killed and not all of them - 30 people.



Quote:

Ravid Rom Let's fight anti-Semitism? It means also stop the hate for Jews.
Most Arab Muslims hate Jews.


They're also spamming her wall with diatribes against Sharia law, as if Libby has somehow declared her support for it. 

ottawaobserver

It's so sick, Michelle.

remind remind's picture

And Bob Rae has associated himself with these people....

Michelle

Yeah, other people have too, remind.  People closer to home than Rae.

remind remind's picture

Rae demanded her job.

 

My feeling on 'Muc'lair and his actions in this respect have already been declared

vaudree

I think that is Bill Siksay's portfolio when it involves homophobia.

Libby D would do best to keep the worst of the comments to bring up to discredit her distractors when they again raise their ugly heads.

I am sure that whoever runs against Rae would also want to get their hands on a few of them.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Michelle: thank you for posting the Facebook page comments, I find them particularly interesting (as well as confirmation of my decision to have nothing to do with Facebook). Ilona Jonnele's are of particular interest to me. They are the clearest indication that those coordinating the Facebook attack should spend a little more time training their minions to stay on message, and doing a wee bit of education that this great big interweb thingy actually connects to places outside of the USofA - at least they could have created a sample message that wasn't quite so easily identifiable as to where it originated.

skdadl

The listing of the offences to the amendments is amusing, is it not? (Much though I honour the USian Bill of Rights as a classic expression of basic principles and structures.) Some people are just so talking-pointy when they write, eh? Such a giveaway.

I wish to apologize for my outburst above. I don't usually burst out, and I was wrong to do that. Sorry, and hugs to all.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

No forking problem. Wink

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

But you know, skdadl, queer Davenport Liberal Mario Silva made the very same argument in his year-ender with the Capital Xtra Politics Blog "Hill Queeries":

Good observation - and in fact, it's a standard, ritualized talking point for the Israel lobby - "you queers would be dead if you were in Gaza, but Israel is one big Pride celebration".

We should also recall that Mario Silva is a co-chair of the rabidly pro-Israel Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism. They get their manual of talking points direct from the source. These are dangerous people.

 

Michelle

Well, I guess I should be glad that I just moved from his riding to Jack's!

Doug

Unionist wrote:

Good observation - and in fact, it's a standard, ritualized talking point for the Israel lobby - "you queers would be dead if you were in Gaza, but Israel is one big Pride celebration".

 

And they're right...if we went to Tel Aviv Pride. Jersualem Pride is another story. But since when has being nice to gays inside Israel justified being nasty to Palestinians outside Israel?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Doug... are you really sure you want to be saying Jerusalem is part of Israel?

Michelle

Good point!  Although apartheid supporters claim it is.

Ken Burch

Depends on which part of it.  I think even Palestinians are ok with WEST Jerusalem being part of Israel.  As far as I know.

Cueball Cueball's picture

?

No Yards No Yards's picture

skdadl wrote:

The listing of the offences to the amendments is amusing, is it not? (Much though I honour the USian Bill of Rights as a classic expression of basic principles and structures.) Some people are just so talking-pointy when they write, eh? Such a giveaway.

I wish to apologize for my outburst above. I don't usually burst out, and I was wrong to do that. Sorry, and hugs to all.

 

Not to mention that most Christian sects in the USA also violate those same ammendments ... but the constitution  includes religious freedom, so the fundamentalist Christians, like the Muslims, and that poster, are free to be repugnant iceholes.

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Depends on which part of it.  I think even Palestinians are ok with WEST Jerusalem being part of Israel.  As far as I know.

Honestly, Ken, no one in the world has ever recognized the division of Jerusalem or Israel's right to any part of it - not even the U.S. The United Nations declared it as an international city under U.N. protection, with religious rights of the three religions protected. Joe Clark learned this truth to his embarrassment in 1979, as you may recall. Jerusalem - or more properly, Al-Quds, is not part of Israel.

Unionist

skdadl wrote:

I wish to apologize for my outburst above. I don't usually burst out, and I was wrong to do that. Sorry, and hugs to all.

Hugs and forgiveness. Anyway, if June is busting out all over, why not skdadl?

 

Ken Burch

Cueball wrote:

?

Isn't the position that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state?

I wasn't aware that they now wanted all of Jerusalem.  If that is the case I stand corrected.

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Cueball wrote:

?

Isn't the position that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state?

I wasn't aware that they now wanted all of Jerusalem.  If that is the case I stand corrected.

When you say "they now wanted all of Jerusalem", I hope you have noticed that it is the Israeli aggressors that have continuously brayed the mantra of "the indivisible capital of Israel" - a "capital" that no serious country in the entire world recognizes.

Yes, you stand corrected.

Stockholm

If the UN declared Jerusalem to be an "international city" (whatever that means - does that mean that if the bus schedule is off - I shoudl complain to Ban-Ki-Moon??) - then it also means that Palestinians have no right to it cannot make it their capital either.

Unionist

Oh really, Stockholm? You think the U.N. has jurisdiction over sovereign peoples and states? All I said was that the claim by the Israeli racists and war criminals to any part of Jerusalem enjoys NO support anywhere in this world. The people of the region will decide what to do with Al-Quds - not you, not the U.N., not I.

Farmpunk

ETA on second thought

Unionist

Ken Burch, if you're still watching, here is the official position of the Palestinian National Authority on Jerusalem:

Quote:
The Palestinian position on Jerusalem is straightforward:

  1. As part of the territory occupied in 1967, East Jerusalem is subject to United Nations Security Council 242. It is part of the territory over which the Palestinian state shall exercise sovereignty upon its establishment. The state of Palestine shall declare Jerusalem as its capital.
  2. As stated in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Jerusalem (and not merely East Jerusalem) is the subject of permanent status negotiations.
  3. All of Jerusalem should be an open city. Within Jerusalem, irrespective of the resolution of the question of sovereignty, there should be no physical partition that would prevent the free circulation of persons within it.
  4. As to sites of religious significance, most of which are located within the Old City in East Jerusalem, Palestine shall be committed to guaranteeing freedom of worship and access. It will take all possible measures to protect such sites and preserve their dignity.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060212195415/http://www.minfo.gov.ps/permen...

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

The people who live in Jerusalem have "jurisdiction" over it. Right now there are something like half a million Israelis there - what do you recommend - deporting them all to Poland??

No, I was thinking maybe your place.

Quote:
The Palestinians don't ven want west Jerusalem. How can you create an Islamic state under Sharia law if you have over 50% of the population who are non-Muslims?

That's an Islamophobic statement - which I know is just there for fun baiting purposes - but you're not supposed to do that on babble, so I'm reporting you, with sadness.

 

Stockholm

The people who live in Jerusalem have "jurisdiction" over it. Right now there are something like half a million Israelis there - what do you recommend - deporting them all to Poland??

The Palestinians don't ven want west Jerusalem. How can you create an Islamic state under Sharia law if you have over 50% of the population who are non-Muslims?

"Palestine shall be committed to guaranteeing freedom of worship and access"

That's nice to hear - I wonder what happened to that sentiment during the 1948 to 1967 when the Palestinians controlled Old Jerusalem and went out of their way to desecrate Jewish religious locations even using Jewish gravestones to build roads for people to walk on. I;d like to believe that they have a more charitable attitude towards other religions now. Please provide some evidence that is the case.

Stockholm

The charter of Hamas calls for the creation of an "islamic state" in Palestine. I would like to know how exactly you go about creating an Islamic state if the majority of the population is not Muslim and wants no part of that? (Not to mention that many Muslims want no part of an Islamic state) How? I'd like to know. What's the secret recipe?

Noah_Scape

Sorry, but I just have to post this whenever I read about the Israeli/Palestine situation -

John Lennon:

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Cueball wrote:

?

Isn't the position that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state?

I wasn't aware that they now wanted all of Jerusalem.  If that is the case I stand corrected.

This is indeed the danger of the "forget" everything prior to 67 position you are defending. Somehow you end up saying that the Palestinians "now wanted all of Jerusalem" as if this is some new "extra" demand, when in fact the present Palestinian position of accepting only East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state is a major concession on their part.

Sometime in the future, after you have stuffed everything that has happened between 1967 and the present because of some alleged "international consensus" you will be going on about how you are surprised that the Palestinians "now want all of Hebron" as the capital of the Palestinian state.

Greedy fucks, those Palestinians, always wanting what we are taking from them.

Ken Burch

Cueball wrote:

If I remember correctly Hamas ran and won in East Jerusalem council races with female Christian candidates.

Ken Burch wrote:

Cueball wrote:

?

Isn't the position that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state?

I wasn't aware that they now wanted all of Jerusalem.  If that is the case I stand corrected.

This is indeed the danger of the "forget" everything prior to 67 position you are defending. Somehow you end up saying that the Palestinians "now wanted all of Jerusalem" as if this is some new "extra" demand, when in fact the present Palestinian position of accepting only East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state is a major concession on their part.

Sometime in the future, after you have stuffed everything that has happened between 1967 and the present because of some alleged "international consensus" you will be going on about how you are surprised that the Palestinians "now want all of Hebron" as the capital of the Palestinian state.

Greedy fucks, those Palestinians, always wanting what we are taking from them.

Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"?  I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege.  You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.

I abhor everything the Israelis have done to Palestinians since 1967.  I realize that it's a major concesson on the Palestinians' part to even consider accepting the continuation of  Israel in any form at all.  I just thought that what they always had said was they wanted East Jerusalem, that West Jerusalem(which was always, as far as I knew predominately Jewish)was not so much a concern.  As I said, if I was wrong about that, I stand corrected.  Please stop acting as if I suddenly turned into Bernie Farber or Hillary Clinton.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

The charter of Hamas calls for the creation of an "islamic state" in Palestine. I would like to know how exactly you go about creating an Islamic state if the majority of the population is not Muslim and wants no part of that? (Not to mention that many Muslims want no part of an Islamic state) How? I'd like to know. What's the secret recipe?

Yes, well the Israeli declaration of independence calls for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. You don't seem to find that so appauling.

Stockholm

Hamas has made some noises about recognizing the 1949 armistice line as a basis for peace - and the 1949 armistice line puts west Jerusalem in Israel and east Jerusalem in Jordan (to be grandfathered to Palestine).

BTW: I'm surprised that Harper in his efforts to be more pro-Israel than Avigdor Lieberman hasn't yet resurrected Joe Clarks promise to move to the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? What's he waiting for??

Ken Burch

And I wasn't saying "forget everything PRIOR to 67". 

Even in my early posts here on the subject, when I was more pro-Israel than I am now, I never said that(at least as far as I can recollect).

There needs to be major compensation to Palestinians for the dispossession and an admission that they were victims of a great injustice in 1948.  I'd even be willing to support some form of Right of Return.  There's nothing I've said on this issue for a very long time(and my position has changed since I've started posting here)to justfiy your conclusions about me.  I'd even be willing to consider a unitary state as a long-term goal...but there would have to be a reconciliation process(with a lot of reparations to Palestinians)before that would really work.  It wouldn't work right now because the animosity is too deep.

Why are you acting like I'm a Likudnik or something?

Stockholm

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

The charter of Hamas calls for the creation of an "islamic state" in Palestine. I would like to know how exactly you go about creating an Islamic state if the majority of the population is not Muslim and wants no part of that? (Not to mention that many Muslims want no part of an Islamic state) How? I'd like to know. What's the secret recipe?

Yes, well the Israeli declaration of independence calls for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. You don't seem to find that so appauling.

I find it "appalling" if it has to be a Jewish state in the entire old mandate of Palestine (ie: everything between the Med. and the Jordan river) with no rights for non-Jews - (i.e. if Israel annexed all the occupied territories and forced all 2 million Palestinians to convert to Judaism and/or live under Jewish religious law).

Unionist

Anyway, all this stuff about Jerusalem is thread drift, and I'm sorry I participated in it. It would make a very interesting thread. The issue here is the Canada Israel Committee and its homophobic attack on Libby Davies. Should Jack Layton condemn it - or say nothing?

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"?  I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege.  You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.

 

I don't know why. You seem perfectly happy to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, why not also everything from then until 2010?

You proclaim your surprise at the idea that Palestinians might now demand all of Jerusalem as the proper capital for their state, as if this was some kind of extra new agressive territorial demand, as opposed to recognizing that agreeing only to having East Jerusalem as the capital is a major concession on their part.

The people who are now demanding more, are not the Palestinians, but the Isrealis, who are now demanding all of Jerusalem as part of their territory. Indeed as we speak they are affecting this land transfer through an agressive policy of disallowing Palestinian development, ongoing evictions of Palestinian families, and giving out permits to Jews seeking to build in East Jerusalem.

Stargazer

Oh Stock, me thinks you are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, all this stuff about Jerusalem is thread drift, and I'm sorry I participated in it. It would make a very interesting thread. The issue here is the Canada Israel Committee and its homophobic attack on Libby Davies. Should Jack Layton condemn it - or say nothing?

I'd actually like to see a gay rights organization like Egale take the lead in demanding an apology from the Canada-Israel Committee.

Doug

bagkitty wrote:

Doug... are you really sure you want to be saying Jerusalem is part of Israel?

 

For most intents and purposes it is, though not legitimately so.

Stockholm

Stargazer wrote:

Oh Stock, me thinks you are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.

I do try to ignore Unionist as much as possible - though I wouldn;t be so hard on him as to call him an elephant.

Pages

Topic locked