NDP leadership race #132

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP leadership race #132

;;

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

Cullen denies interest in pre-convention pact with NDP rivals

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cullen-deni...

Unionist

Quote:

Speaking of the convention, all candidates are busy preparing 20-minute presentations which will be given on Friday night as a last pitch to voters.

In the case of Ottawa MP Paul Dewar, his “showcase” will feature a new duet with MP Charlie Angus and a Canadian hip hop artist. And he is promising a video introduction by a “surprise guest” .

Jack Layton?

Tommy Douglas?

Faîtes vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs!

NorthReport

Ha!

 

 The NDP can rest content in its mission

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynol...

Unionist

Neil Reynolds wrote:
Old-school socialists these days know rhetoric from reality – and recognize clearly that society’s vulnerable 99 per cent rely for social control of the country on the productive 1 per cent who toil away diligently at the top.

Toil away while ye may, o noble 1%, for one day soon, your power shall be flushed!

 

Winston

Mucker wrote:

...the current machinery within the NDP leadership sees the prospect of him as leader as a threat to their continued existence as the leadership. 

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

+ 1 x 10^898

Did you ever hit the nail on the head!!!

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

Mucker

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

Agreed.  This is the way it's been within the Saskatchewan NDP for years, and this approach has had predicable consequences that I hope we can avoid at the federal level.

NorthReport

Indeed!!!

socialdemocrati...

I feel very torn about the internal party structure.

On one hand, I do think we need to evolve and grow.

On the other hand, now that the NDP is closer to forming government, the "careerist" type of person who ruined the Liberal party is taking another look at us. They see power. If we get into government, the lobbyists and corporate money will surely follow.

Personally, I think that whoever has been piloting the ship over the past ten years has been doing a great job. I wouldn't want to tinker with the formula too much. And I think there's a consensus among the candidates to be bold and compete everywhere, even if they bicker about each other's intentions.

KenS

 

Mucker wrote:

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

As far as the establishment goes, these people do not exist. Period.

They differ with you on the path to becoming the 'Big fish'. And quite naturally, they think the best way to get there includes them staying in the saddle.

But at bottom, they are no different than you. Their self-interest makes them fair game for questioning. But we all have stakes in the positions we take. And its the positions that matter, not bottomless waving at motivations behind positions.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

"I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it."

The irony is that Mulcair is the clear choice of the Canadian Establishment, as expressed through official organs such as the Montreal Gazette, the Globe, and the Toronton Star. Mulcair is their man because he evidently shares their disdain for the NDP and everything it stands for.

In a recent interview with the Toronto Star, Mulcair summed up the contribution of the NDP to Canadian politics in these terms:  "50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions."

Earlier, in the context of a discussion about the role of labour in the party, Mulcair described trade unions as "just another interest group."

It's not just the "party establishment" that deplores such disparaging remarks about the NDP and its historic alliance with labour--an alliance that remains crucial at a time when workers are facing virulent attacks from employers and their political allies on both sides of the border.  Thousands of discerning rank-and-file members know only too well that Mulcair's aim is to transform the NDP into another Liberal Party. That, in turn, would rehabilitate the real Liberal party and disillusion both traditional NDP voters as well as millions of voters who are looking for a real alternative to the neo-liberal dogma of the past 30 years.

JoshD

Does anyone know if all the convention events on Friday will be aired on tv or online?

wage zombie

Coldwell wrote:

The irony is that Mulcair is the clear choice of the Canadian Establishment, as expressed through official organs such as the Montreal Gazette, the Globe, and the Toronton Star. Mulcair is their man because he evidently shares their disdain for the NDP and everything it stands for.

The bolded line appears to me to be 100% accurate.

josh

Yes, the MSM is pushing Mulcair as hard as they can.  They see a golden opportunity to have three pro-corporate parties.

CanadaApple

Thought this was interesting...

Quote:
The Conservatives are prepared for Mulcair.

Senior sources claim they would welcome his abrasiveness in the House of Commons because they don't think that style sells well to voters.

They see a leader who will be so engaged in repairing the crumbling foundation of the party in Quebec, that the party's other flanks, particularly British Columbia, will be vulnerable.

They see a leader who will be busy putting out internecine fires - or fuelling them - after his victory, possibly even losing Vancouver MP Libby Davies whose antipathy for Mulcair is well known and who could be prepared to move into the provincial arena where a cabinet seat would await her if New Democrat Adrian Dix wins the 2013 B.C. vote.

Have any of the Mulcair supporters here thought about this?

Mucker

KenS wrote:

 

Mucker wrote:

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

As far as the establishment goes, these people do not exist. Period.

They differ with you on the path to becoming the 'Big fish'. And quite naturally, they think the best way to get there includes them staying in the saddle.

But at bottom, they are no different than you. Their self-interest makes them fair game for questioning. But we all have stakes in the positions we take. And its the positions that matter, not bottomless waving at motivations behind positions.

Apart from the suggestion that there is no party establishment (which is pretty much false by definition) I think your comments are probably quite accurate.  I'm simply suggesting that the following attack...

Mulcair will move the party to the right, or at least to the centre.

Can more accurately be interpreted as...

If Mulcair wins, I won't have as much direct control over what the NDP does.

And as a result, I think the attacks are underhanded and childish.  We should be making leadership decisions based on the positions the leadership candidates hold, not on whether the selection of one leader over another will lead to a reduction in the influence of some bureaucrat, strategist or party elder.

KenS

Accept I believe that is what Mulcair will too likely do, independent that voices of the party establishment are saying it.

In other words, the position has its own legs.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

All these concerns about Mulcair aside, I am interested in governing. It seems to me Jack (blessed be his memory) was moving laterally as well, so I am concerned but I'm voting for Tom. I'll count on the membership at the constituency level to do its job and keep the muckey mucks honest.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

From the previous thread:

josh wrote:
If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

 

flight from kamakura

this is sort of interesting, from the jamey heath op-ed in the globe: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Thomas%20Mulcair,Brian%20Topp,N...

as for cullen, that comment about "don't vote for me unless you want the ndp to go in a very different direction" signals to me that he might be a little worried about winning.

also, as a meta issue, is there a way we could tone back the 'rah-rah' stuff, especially on the mulcair side?  i don't think there's a single person on this board who isn't very clear on who they support, and i can't be the only one it's turning off.  that said, always good to clarify mulcair's positions when people randomly attack his candidacy or person.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

Mulcair earns more glowing tributes from the corporate media. This Postmedia story, published today, confidently predicts that Mulcair will re-invent the NDP in the image of "New Labour."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Mulcair+policies+heresy+style+establishment+Michael+Tandt/6323108/story.html

It is becoming increasingly implausible for Mulcair to deny he plans move the party to the centre (i.e., to the right of where it is now).

flight from kamakura

let the media fantasize about what mulcair will do.  when have they ever told the truth about the ndp?  if mulcair does win, it just makes it that much easier for him to make credible arguments to the canadian people and that much more likely that we'll take government next election.

Mucker

Coldwell wrote:

Mulcair earns more glowing tributes from the corporate media. This Postmedia story, published today, confidently predicts that Mulcair will re-invent the NDP in the image of "New Labour."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Mulcair+policies+heresy+style+establishment+Michael+Tandt/6323108/story.html

It is becoming increasingly implausible for Mulcair to deny he plans move the party to the centre (i.e., to the right of where it is now).

So, because the mainstream media - so villified on this board - says Mulcair will move the part to the centre, we all of a sudden believe it will happen?  Since when do we get to selectively believe the mainstream media when it suits our position, but ridicule it when it runs opposite?

Howard

I've been getting attack ad scripts from non-NDPers based on Broadbent's comments in my inbox. Three cheers for party unity and doing what's best for the party, Mr. Topp.

TheArchitect

Catchfire wrote:

From the previous thread:

josh wrote:
If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

Catchfire is right: it's important that everyone on Babble try to always remain civil.  A spirited debate about the relative merits and drawbacks of all the candidates is fine.  Personal attacks on other Babblers are not.

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

(Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...)

Isn't using the term "sissy" rather offensive and insensitive?  Personally, I'd like to have a leader who refrains from that kind of language.

Stockholm

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

TheArchitect

Stockholm wrote:

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

A good point.  I don't know what the original French term would have been either.  It's possible that the article translates Mulcair's word poorly.  If the word Mulcair used does translate into anything like "sissy," though, then the quote is rather perturbing.

TheArchitect

Double post.

Mucker

TheArchitect wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

From the previous thread:

josh wrote:
If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

Catchfire is right: it's important that everyone on Babble try to always remain civil.  A spirited debate about the relative merits and drawbacks of all the candidates is fine.  Personal attacks on other Babblers are not.

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

(Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...)

Isn't using the term "sissy" rather offensive and insensitive?  Personally, I'd like to have a leader who refrains from that kind of language.

...

Are you serious?

It was a hockey game.

JoshD

TheArchitect wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

A good point.  I don't know what the original French term would have been either.  It's possible that the article translates Mulcair's word poorly.  If the word Mulcair used does translate into anything like "sissy," though, then the quote is rather perturbing.

 

Horrible! Even worse, I heard that at a meet and greet that Tom ate ribs for dinner! Appaling! I do not want an NDP Leader who eats ribs!

Hunky_Monkey

I think if Tom used the word sissy almost 20 years ago, then it was wrong to do so. See the key word... "if".

That said, all I've seen is a great respect and appreciation for others including women and the GLBT community in his actions and words.

Funny how if the media say something positive about Tom, it's proof that he's a sell out and we shouldn't trust him... but if they say something negative about Tom, it's accurate and factual as if it's god's word. Priceless.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

It's nice to know that Mulcair supporters see nothing wrong with using misogynist and homphobic slur if the context is right.

Mucker

Catchfire wrote:

It's nice to know that Mulcair supporters see nothing wrong with using misogynist and homphobic slur if the context is right.

An impressive display of the self-righteousness that has kept the NDP out of reach of government for 50 years.

Unionist

Mulcair, the hockey-buff homophobe?

Outed at last!!! And just in time for the Convention!

The horse-race betters have clearly run out of stuff to talk about. Probably time to crown a Winner and let her/him dictate party policy, as per hallowed tradition.

It's what Jack/Tommy/Jesus would have wanted.

 

 

Stockholm

Its nice to know that with Mulcair the NDP can have a leader who actually PLAYS our national sport - unlike Harper who has spent the last 7 years talking about writing a book about it!

mark_alfred

Re post 24:  The hockey game thing sounds kind of cool, actually.  

Anyway, on a different subject, I read in a blog post yesterday that Mulcair opposes working with the Liberals in any sort of cooperation, either before or after an election.  I checked this out and found an article in the Huffington Post where it states,

Quote:
One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party.

“N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition.

“The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

So, unlike Layton, he's not open to a coalition or accord to remove the Conservatives from power even if after the next election the Conservatives won a plurarity of seats and could be kicked out with a coalition or accord by the NDP and the Liberals.  This is something that should give pause to any Cullen supporters for supporting Mulcair as a second choice.

It seems a gamble that could limit options, which reminds me of Ignatieff's similar stance (IE, it's either us or them, and no middle ground).  But to be fair the presentation of it is different, in that when Ignatieff rejected the coalition, he did so out of fear that it would make the Liberals less popular (seeming to buy into the Conservative rhetoric), whereas Mulcair is saying that he takes this stand because the Liberals are unreliable (once bitten, twice shy).  It might be good strategy, but I do worry it could be a bit limiting.  Seems a very big gamble, especially if in the next election the Liberals gain some seats (IE, get up to 60 or so) and the NDP maintains its seats with some gains to have enough (with a coalition) to give the Tories the boot.  What then if the coalition option has been eliminated?  More Conservative rule in a minority situation, it would seem.

It may be the right strategy.  I'm not very fond of Liberals, and don't buy into the rhetoric that the Conservatives are that much worse (they're both cats in mouseland, as far as I'm concerned).  Still, I'm not fond of eliminating potentially useful options for the future, either.

socialdemocrati...

If we banned anyone who ever hurled an insult from elected office, we'd have no government. I'm not endorsing personal attacks. But half of babble has been banned or warned at some point in this race, and I don't hold a grudge for what was said a week ago. Your best argument against a candidate is something he said 20 years ago during a hockey game?

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred... you really think if Mulcair brings the Tories to a minority and the Liberals offer to make him PM, he'd say "Go f**k yourselves!"?

ETA: I also think we're fooling ourselves in thinking the Liberals would ever make a New Democrat PM.

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred... you really think if Mulcair brings the Tories to a minority and the Liberals offer to make him PM, he'd say "Go f**k yourselves!"?

I'm just reading what he said in the article and assuming he's sincere.  Should I assume he's not being honest in his statements?

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred... you really think if Mulcair brings the Tories to a minority and the Liberals offer to make him PM, he'd say "Go f**k yourselves!"?

I'm just reading what he said in the article and assuming he's sincere.  Should I assume he's not being honest in his statements?

If you look at his exact quotes, I understand it as reference to working with them pre-election as in what Cullen is proposing.

Howard

Niki's idea about holding a party conference in Lethbridge, Alberta is a good one. She could MC it (being as she is so bilingual), just like she and Megan Leslie did at the Halifax convention. I would like to see the NDP hold a caucus retreat in Lethbridge that could also serve as a mini-party conference (for one day), as Niki Ashton is suggesting.

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:
As part of his tour in the leadership race, Thomas Mulcair, NDP Deputy Leader and MP for Outremont, will be in Toronto, Tuesday March 20th, to unveil new endorsements for his leadership bid and details of his organisational plan for the next general election.

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:
As part of his tour in the leadership race, Thomas Mulcair, NDP Deputy Leader and MP for Outremont, will be in Toronto, Tuesday March 20th, to unveil new endorsements for his leadership bid and details of his organisational plan for the next general election.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred... you really think if Mulcair brings the Tories to a minority and the Liberals offer to make him PM, he'd say "Go f**k yourselves!"?

I'm just reading what he said in the article and assuming he's sincere.  Should I assume he's not being honest in his statements?

If Mulcair says he'll never form a coalition to defeat Harper, he should be run out of the party. Or join the Socialist Caucus, whose policy that is.

However, I didn't see any actual quote from him in your article, mark_alfred, that says he opposes a coalition with the Liberals or anyone else. Could you direct me to it please? A quote. Between quotation marks. Please.

If Mulcair is as stupid as Ignatieff was on this issue, I would not have voted for him for that reason alone. But Jack clearly said he was still open to coalitions to defeat Harper, and I haven't heard a single one of the candidates abandon that openness - which was one of the key factors, by the way, in winning Québec.

 

 

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred... you really think if Mulcair brings the Tories to a minority and the Liberals offer to make him PM, he'd say "Go f**k yourselves!"?

I'm just reading what he said in the article and assuming he's sincere.  Should I assume he's not being honest in his statements?

If you look at his exact quotes, I understand it as reference to working with them pre-election as in what Cullen is proposing.

He referenced the post-election coalition attempt with the Liberals in 2008 and said he'd never work with them again.  link

TheArchitect

This is a reasonable reaction to my comment about Mulcair and the word "sissy":

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I think if Tom used the word sissy almost 20 years ago, then it was wrong to do so. See the key word... "if".
That said, all I've seen is a great respect and appreciation for others including women and the GLBT community in his actions and words.

And this is not:

JoshD wrote:

Horrible! Even worse, I heard that at a meet and greet that Tom ate ribs for dinner! Appaling! I do not want an NDP Leader who eats ribs!

I find it astonishing that anyone would compare using a highly offensive slur to eating ribs.  I'm not going to speculate about the exact biases or insinuations implicit in such a comparison, but I'm pretty darn sure that this kind of thing has no place in our discourse, in our party, or in our Canada.

Mucker wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

It's nice to know that Mulcair supporters see nothing wrong with using misogynist and homphobic slur if the context is right.

An impressive display of the self-righteousness that has kept the NDP out of reach of government for 50 years.

I found the above exchange rather interesting.  I'd always thought that the NDP had been kept out of government due to tactical voting, but apparently, it's because we object to the use misogynistic and homophobic slurs!  Who would have guessed?

I must also reply to socialdemocraticmiddle:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Your best argument against a candidate is something he said 20 years ago during a hockey game?

You know as well as I do, my friend, that I've given a good many reasons that I don't support Mulcair.  Believe me, this isn't supposed to be some sort of "best argument" against Mulcair.  It's a quote I noticed from an article that was shared here in Babble which I found irksome.

And finally, on a completely unrelated note:

Howard wrote:

Niki's idea about holding a party conference in Lethbridge, Alberta is a good one. She could MC it (being as she is so bilingual), just like she and Megan Leslie did at the Halifax convention. I would like to see the NDP hold a caucus retreat in Lethbridge that could also serve as a mini-party conference (for one day), as Niki Ashton is suggesting.

I definitely agree with Howard (and Niki) about this one.  I've always felt that the party needs to hold more conferences—different from the party conventions—to get its message out.  And Lethbridge would be a great spot for one.

algomafalcon

CanadaApple wrote:

Thought this was interesting...

Quote:

They see a leader who will be busy putting out internecine fires - or fuelling them - after his victory, possibly even losing Vancouver MP Libby Davies whose antipathy for Mulcair is well known and who could be prepared to move into the provincial arena where a cabinet seat would await her if New Democrat Adrian Dix wins the 2013 B.C. vote.

Have any of the Mulcair supporters here thought about this?

Well, I'm not sure Libby is the type to quit politics because she might have disagreements with the leader - but her seat has to be one of the safest NDP seats in the country - for decades. 

From Wikipedia:

Vancouver East is known as a New Democratic Party stronghold; the NDP and its Co-operative Commonwealth Federation predecessor have won all but two elections in the riding since its creation in 1933. Both losses (1974and 1993) have come at the hands of Liberal candidates who failed to retain the seat at the next election. TheConservative Party and its right-leaning predecessors have always fared poorly in the riding, rarely garnering more than 20 percent of the vote.

(And I am just adding this as a comment - not as a "Mulcair Supporter")

 

Further to that, if Brian Topp wins as leader, Libby's riding just might be one of the safest bets for an untested candidate to get elected to the house, although commute-wise a riding in Ontario or Quebec might be preferable. Since Brian is not an MP, he will probably have to ask an MP to step down so he can run in a by-election or ask Nicole to continue serving as the NDP leader in the House of Commons.

Mucker

TheArchitect wrote:

Mucker wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

It's nice to know that Mulcair supporters see nothing wrong with using misogynist and homphobic slur if the context is right.

An impressive display of the self-righteousness that has kept the NDP out of reach of government for 50 years.

I found the above exchange rather interesting.  I'd always thought that the NDP had been kept out of government due to tactical voting, but apparently, it's because we object to the use misogynistic and homophobic slurs!  Who would have guessed?

The right (and the centre, for that matter) has always painted the NPD as out of touch with mainstream Canada.  I'm not suggesting that being out of touch with mainstream Canada is necessarily always such a bad thing, considering where mainstream Canada stands on some issues.  However, this self-righteous suggestion that context counts for nothing in person to person discourse is laughable, and plays directly into that unfortunate "crazy lefty" meme.  It is us living the stereotype that has kept us out of government.

Opposing offensive language in a hockey game is akin to opposing the sport itself.  Who gets to define what's acceptable?  And who gets to interpret the language?

socialdemocrati...

I'd like to see the NDP tent grow. If someone like Libby Davies would feel the need to leave the tent, that's a step in the wrong direction.

Jack Layton did a lot to "moderate" the NDP. I've been okay with the decisions he made, sometimes even a fan. But he managed to do it with very little controversy and in-fighting. That's because he worked hard to make people feel included, and to avoid framing any of those battles as left-right battles. Instead, they were means-ends battles (can we achieve the same goal with a more palatable policy), or incremental-immediatist battles (would this be a good first step that might open the door to further reforms).

Unfortunately, we no longer have Jack. I'm left scratching my head over who can keep everyone unified as we grow. Maybe it can't be done. Maybe growth necessarily means losing some people to make room for others. I'd prefer to keep everyone.

Sean in Ottawa

Catchfire wrote:

It's nice to know that Mulcair supporters see nothing wrong with using misogynist and homphobic slur if the context is right.

Do you care to add the word "some" before "Mulcair supporters" or are you tarring all Mulcair supporters with the same brush?

It would be nice if the prohibition against personal attacks would be universal here.

Hoodeet

Quote:

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

(Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...)

Isn't using the term "sissy" rather offensive and insensitive?  Personally, I'd like to have a leader who refrains from that kind of language.

Hoodeet (JW)

I'm not one to tolerate homophobic, racist or sexist language, but in a hockey game, where testosterone rules and primitive behaviour is rampant, it's kind of silly, or at least unrealistic, IMO to expect players to think before they insult an opponent, and "sissy" is pretty tame compared to some other nasty words he could have uttered.  It would be another thing to yell it out loud or to use that language in conversation or in political debate.   :)

Pages

Topic locked