Facebook blowback about Israeli Apartheid Week vote in Ontario Legislature

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
aka Mycroft

johnpauljones wrote:

after talking to an inner circle mpp it seems that...

Namedropping only actually works if you drop the name:)

aka Mycroft

johnpauljones wrote:

aka it was a voice vote. there are no abstentions. you either yell yes or no

 

to show that you abstain you would have had to have a counted vote -- therefore it would be seen that you just stayed in your seat and did not rise for a yes or a no

 

so yes i am saying that their is some playing with the truth going on here.

 

Possibly. I think the NDP is trying to have it both ways by sitting on the fence. DiNovo went too far off the fence in one direction and Horwath tried to correct that with her open letter but didn't do it too loudly (ie by contacting the media) for fear of drawing attention.

There is actually no mechanism for "abstaining" in parliament. In a voice vote the Speaker asks for "yeas" and "nays" only and in a recorded vote you are only asked to stand to vote in favour or against. You can simply not show up, or sit in your seat and say nothing, but if you want your "abstention" on the record you either have to say in you're speech that you're not voting or stand on a point of privilege and enter into the record that you are "abstaining". DiNovo didn't do this, neither did any other NDP MPPs.

oldgoat

Yeah, it's you.

Stockholm

This whole saga just reinforces to me that if you are a provincial politician and you know what's good for you - the best thing to say about the Middle East is NOTHING.

Michelle

Huh, that's weird.  The original "I was defriended" group is gone now, and this new one was created by the same person who created the last one.  I wonder what happened.

Stockholm: You're probably right!  However, it was the Conservatives who pushed the issue into the provincial Legislature and attacked activists, so I think a response is probably appropriate from political allies of activists.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

I think that when the Tories bring this sort of stuff to the Legislature, the best response is to say, 'the Tories are not being helpful, they are being divisive, and we will oppose their motion/action/statements on that basis.'

In other words, pretty much what Horvath put in her letter, only she had to do it as damage control.  If the caucus as a whole did it from the start, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

objet_petit_a

Is it me or is there something profoundly incongruous with the banishment of synthome, especially on this thread?

First they came for difference of opinion but I did not speak for I dared not think differently than the almighty Unionist and his old guard authoritarian friends...

Then they came for synthome but I didn't speak up for I dwelt safely within the confines of monologic ideology,

Then they came for the object petit a but by then their object cause of desire had revealed itself as pure surplus that remains in the wake of the feverish attempt to close meaning.

So they remained condemned to circle endlessly in their intolerant hatred...

Tongue out

To be clear: The limit on free speech around here is "pomposity", which guarantees banishment. Referring cynically, hatefully, and wrongly to a public official as "speaking like a little fascist", "exercising heavy handed censorship", and being "an ignorant self-important pompous boob" etc. is met with neither a murmur of disapproval nor a hint of reprisal.

gita

hello all.

the original group "I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo" was hijacked and deleted just a short time ago.  It had open admin.  But it seems that whoever deleted it is in agreement with Cheri DiNovo that dissenting voices should not be heard.  But we won't be beat.  A new group has been created called "I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo (II)" at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=352208128692. Sorry, no open admin any more.

Gus Williams

aka Mycroft wrote:
Jaku wrote:

Well aka Mycroft obsessive yes but "maniac" is your word not mine

Stay classy, Jaku.

I clearly understand classy as most others do. Hope you do as well...btw "classy" people don't put words in other peoples mouths as you did with jacu.

Unionist

gita wrote:

hello all.

the original group "I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo" was hijacked and deleted just a short time ago.  It had open admin.  But it seems that whoever deleted it is in agreement with Cheri DiNovo that dissenting voices should not be heard.  But we won't be beat.  A new group has been created called "I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo (II)" at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=352208128692. Sorry, no open admin any more.

Hello and welcome gita - I just wanted to thank you for your courage and persistence. What you are doing is hugely important.

 

Stockholm

Has anyone bothered starting a facebook group condemning Peter Shurman - remember him? The guy who moved this motion in the first place

Gus Williams

No we're too busy condemning Cheri Dinovo for acting on her Leaqder's instructions and then praising the Leader for hanging Cheri out to dry.

Life, the unive...

johnpauljones wrote:

aka that sounds like good spin. unfort after talking to an inner circle mpp it seems that cheri did not go off script. she did not forget anything. rather she spoke with the approval of the leader and better yet andrea approved the speech as delivered.

This and the following comments about voice votes are simply not factual.  Abstaining, in the Canadians context is a simple matter of not voting or participating.  The only difference is if you want your abstention on record.  In that case you have to rise in the house and put your absention on record. 

As well MPPs are simply not that tightly controlled.  Thier every comment is not vetted through caucus services or the leaders office.  It would be too time consuming if nothing else. 

The most plausible explanation is that diNovo went wildly off script, even if her speech was written.  Written speeches for politicians, who are supposed to be experts, are not word for word scripts, or not usually, instead they are often key words or phrases and the speaker is expected to talk around the written material.  That gets them away from seeming like they are reading and look more like they are talking.  (It might be different with a teleprompter I don't know)

With diNovo's homelies about her own personal experiences and rememberances that are really quite twisted and convoluted it is hard to imagine that is word for word written down material.  Most people write better than that.  When I lived in the US I spent time as a State Congressman's speech writer and aide.  That was the way most speeches were written for either party so I can't imagine it has changed much, or is much different here, even if that was a couple of decades ago.

Gus Williams

Help me here...if Cheri abstained then, she would have indicated such and there would be a record right? So w2hat does the record say?

aka Mycroft

Evidently, these days you abstain by saying so on Facebook.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Stockholm wrote:

This whole saga just reinforces to me that if you are a provincial politician and you know what's good for you - the best thing to say about the Middle East is NOTHING.

In the days of South African apartheid politicians at all levels of government had things to say.   Are you saying that whatever was said back then by provincial politicians shouldn't have been said?   Or for that matter, that provincial politicians shouldn't comment about international issues?

Part of the Israeli strategy to maintain the occupation is to put across the idea that it's "way too complicated for us little folks to understand".

As someone who's recently been to Israel and the West Bank it isn't complicated at all.   You can't go there and not see very clearly that it's an apartheid state.    Hell even Michael Ignatieff described the West Bank as a South African style "Bantustan".

 

 

Life, the unive...

Abstaining in a voice vote means not shouting yes or no, but remaining silent.  The Speaker doesn't actually ask for those abstaining on either a recorded or voice vote.  So they only way you could know if someone abstained is if they said so after or before the vote.

I also wouldn't read to much into thanking the Conservative member for bringing the motion forward.  That is sort of standard comment in the mock politeness that is the bizarre world of the floor of a legislature, like refering to Mister (Madam) Speaker, or refering to everyone as an honourable member even if they are Randy Hillier.

aka Mycroft

Gus Williams wrote:

Help me here...if Cheri abstained then, she would have indicated such and there would be a record right? So w2hat does the record say?

No. It was a voice vote and the record doesn't say that it was unanimous. It just says it passed.

 

Hansard wrote:

ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): We will deal first with ballot item number 61, standing in the name of Mr. Shurman.

Mr. Shurman has moved private members' notice of motion number 93. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Gus Williams wrote:

No we're too busy condemning Cheri Dinovo for acting on her Leaqder's instructions and then praising the Leader for hanging Cheri out to dry.

So am I to understand that you are condemning Shurman's motion?

johnpauljones

aka and if 1 ndp memeber had said no to the question of the speaker the proceedings would then have been. the speaker saying the louder of the 2 won the vote and if more than 5 mpps had stood up the speaker would have had the bells ring for 5 minutes for a recorded vote.

so it was unanimous since no one said no

Life, the unive...

That is not how it works.  You are just making things up to create a demon to rail against.

It is simply recorded as carried for a motion.  You can invent all kinds of fantasy scenario's but the truth is that there is no recording of yes or no votes, only whether it carried in the opinion of the speaker on a voice vote.  They only time members would stand is if they disagree with the speaker ruling, or if they were using it as a procedural delaying tactic.  So if no one voted no, or even only one or two members it would still be recorded as passing as it is in Hansard - so in no way can it be intepreted as being unanimous.  You seem to be the only one claiming this as even media reports never claimed it was so. 

 

Unionist

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

 So if no one voted no, or even only one or two members it would still be recorded as passing as it is in Hansard - so in no way can it be intepreted as being unanimous.  You seem to be the only one claiming this as even media reports never claimed it was so. 

Well, in fairness, [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/771524--mpps-unite-to-condemn...'s what the Toronto Star's Robert Benzie said[/url]:

Quote:
In a rare show of unanimity, Ontario MPPs of all political stripes have banded together to condemn “Israeli Apartheid Week.” [...]

New Democratic MPP Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park) said while the motion, which passed with a unanimous voice vote at 4 p.m., was “symbolic,” it sent a signal that parliamentarians want to promote positive debate.

I may have misunderstood your point.

 

Jaku

So then Life, as JPJ suggested Cheri could not have abstained. Now I say this in fact with the understanding that if there is any blame heere it must go to the leader. Unlike others who have a warped sense of politics, the buck stops with the leader. If she really nbelieved that Cheri did something wrong she would have issued a much more public letter not one seen by a limited few then hidden somewhere. Thoise praising Andrea are misguided. She messed up big time.

Life, the unive...

Well I stand corrected Unionist as I did not see that particular story.  It seems that the reporter overstepped reality to make an angle on a story.  Unless he was looking at every single member all at the same time he could not possibly make the claim the vote was unanimous.  At best he could claim that no one voted against, since we have members stating they did not vote but abstained.  That by definition makes the vote not unanimous.  Even if some other member was in the House and did not bother to vote it in fact would technically also not be unanimous.  However, that doesn't write as well I expect.  It seems the reporter got it wrong  or overstated the case, which must be the first time in the history of the world do you think?

And Jaku the only one misguided seems to be you.

Jaku

LOL, i am still stuck on this abstention business. Everything I have read suggests that there only way an abstention can be recorded is if the one abstaining makes that clear DURING the vote. With no recorded abstentions clearly there were none. right?

Life, the unive...

You can't make an abstention clear during the vote as has been pointed out repeatedly.  The Speaker only recognizes yes and no votes.  So the actual vote total on a voice vote might be 20 yeas, 5 nays and 30 abstentions (in that they neither called out a yes or a no), but Hansard only records that the motion carried.  A voice vote takes place all at once, there is no calling for yes and no, only what the pleasure of the House is.  The Speaker then decides who carried the vote, (those for or those against) if there is a disagreement, or  member so chose a recorded vote can be called.

The only way abstentions can be recorded is before or after the actual vote not during, regardless of whether it is a recorded or voice vote.  A member might say in the House I won't be voting on this motion because I think it is all wrong.  Or they might issue a statement, or make a comment in the media that they did not vote on the motion because they thought it was poorly worded.  Usually nothing happens as these motions are pretty meaningless except in a symbolic way as they have no force or effect on any actual real world happening.  I admit this is the first time I have heard of making an absention clear being done on facebook, but that doesn't mean the process is all that different. 

Jaku

So there were no abstentions

Life, the unive...

I give up.  You are being little more than a sophist.

 

There are never any recorded abstentions during a vote.  EVER. EVER. EVER.  Not voting is a de facto abstention. Recording an absentions is a form thing that MPPs, MLAs, or MPs sometimes, although rarely, make by giving a statement to the fact that they did not want to vote in favour or against, for whatever reason they name.  Sometimes it is done in a statement before a vote, sometimes in a statement after a vote.  They can be made in the house or outside it through a released statement or a media interview.  Apparently the hip new thing is to do it on facebook.  Maybe next week someone with tweet a absention somewhere. 

Lord Palmerston

I think the group's second incarnation has also been deleted. 

gita

yes, indeed, it was deleted.  and it did not have open admin, so we're zeroing in on who the double agent might be.  the 3rd reincarnation can be found here:

I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=353309418327

Jaku

Why is this so difficult? Cheri says she abstained. There are no abstentions. She didnt tell the truth. Is that about it?

Life, the unive...

Do you enjoy lying and making false accusations?  I have gone through the process a few times now.  Abstentions are not recorded.  That is not the same thing as there being no abstentions.  Members who wish to make an abstention recorded or known do so in the manner in which I outlined.  You and others keep saying there is no record of an abstention therefore it is a lie.  Such a recording is impossible in the way you suggest it must occur as I have pointed out numerous times now.  So you are either being willful in your false accusations or you are just plain stupid, because the only lies being told seem to be coming from you!

Stargazer

Jaku wrote:

So then Life, as JPJ suggested Cheri could not have abstained. Now I say this in fact with the understanding that if there is any blame heere it must go to the leader. Unlike others who have a warped sense of politics, the buck stops with the leader. If she really nbelieved that Cheri did something wrong she would have issued a much more public letter not one seen by a limited few then hidden somewhere. Thoise praising Andrea are misguided. She messed up big time.

 

I agree with Jaku on this point. I have been waiting patiently for some type of explanation, or for Andrea's letter to be made public.  The NDP needs to make a statement on this issue one way or another.

Lord Palmerston

Cheri DiNovo defriending site III has been deleted.

gita

update re I Was Defriended by / I Defriended Cheri DiNovo Facebook group:

The 3rd reincarnation was also just deleted.  It appears to be Facebook admin doing that although they have not sent me any notices (unusual). Looking into it.

Unionist

Gita, have you tried just running the site yourself? Is there an efficiency gain in sharing administrative power? Then you'll know for sure.

Meanwhile, it appears that Ms. DiNovo is very nervous. That, I must say, is a good thing. She can still issue a letter like Horwath's, or she can continue to act like a little fascist. Any bettors in the house?

 

Jaku

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Do you enjoy lying and making false accusations?  I have gone through the process a few times now.  Abstentions are not recorded.  That is not the same thing as there being no abstentions.  Members who wish to make an abstention recorded or known do so in the manner in which I outlined.  You and others keep saying there is no record of an abstention therefore it is a lie.  Such a recording is impossible in the way you suggest it must occur as I have pointed out numerous times now.  So you are either being willful in your false accusations or you are just plain stupid, because the only lies being told seem to be coming from you!

Firstly it is against Babble policy to namecall. Secondly it is you that is being rather obtuse. Here is the bottom line. There are no recorded abstentions. I get it. So why did Cheri claim she abstained? That's all Im asking.

Secondly if Andrea is so put out why the hell can I not find her letter anywhere more public? This whole mess just stinks and makes the party look silly.

aka Mycroft

Try calling it something else maybe relating to the IAW vote instead of facebook functions. Maybe facebook has a thing about publicizing "defriending"?

Michelle

Yeah, I'm wondering whether her supporters are reporting the group as an "attack on an individual", which, if I remember correctly, is one of the options you can choose when reporting a group to FB admins.

It's been interesting seeing this whole thing unfold.  I haven't joined any of those groups because I haven't been defriended and don't have any desire to defriend her either.  I just hope she will come to understand why people are so unhappy with her statements and actions in this matter. 

gita

Thanks for the suggestions.  The 2nd group had a select number of admins whom I know directly and I was the only admin for the 3rd group which was deleted within about 15 mins after it was created.  So it definitely is FB's doing.  There doesn't seem to be any automatic filtering based on "defriending" or the first group wouldn't have lasted for over a day and the 2nd group lasted about 6 hrs.  A couple of people have been helping to read through the maze of FB faqs and get an answer from FB admin which has now become invisible (i.e. there is no direct contact with them) but we're following up through discussion forums.  Before we get an answer as to why these groups have been deleted, it seems a wasted effort to start another one.  But updates are posted at the original note How Cheri DiNovo Responds to Critics at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150139041655241&comments

gita
objet_petit_a

Jaku, evidently excessive pomposity is grounds for censorship and banishment, but name calling is not contrary to Babble policy, particularly if you happen to be a moderator's pet, in which case it's rather encouraged. (I assume in service of establishing babble hegemony).

 Follow this link, it should clear things up around here... 


First they came for difference of opinion but I did not speak for I dared not think at variance with almighty and truculent Unionist and his old guard authoritarian friends...

Then they came for le sinthome and I didn't speak up for I dwelt safely within the confines of monologic fundamentalist ideology,

Then they came for the object petit a but by then their object cause of desire had revealed itself as the pure ungraspable surplus created in the wake of their feverish attempt to monopolize meaning.

So they remained condemned to circle endlessly around their intolerant hatred as unwitting participants in the entrenchment of neoLiberal hegemony. Tongue out

P.S @ Michelle,

Cheri DiNovo has been much more than a stalwart ally on anti-poverty issues. She stood proudly with CUPE 3903 workers many of whom are quite content to pillory her now. She has long been an advocate of and activist for queer and trans rights in this country. She has stood up against injustices all over the world (Holodomor, in the Middle East, in Tibet). She did little else but reiterate Federal NDP policy on the Middle East. Whether or not you agree on the most useful and ethical way to proceed. Whether or not you feel betrayed, your inability to distinguish her position from the Conservative and Liberal position (based on her remarks in Hansard alone, irrespective of her public record as a social activist) requires a level of denial and contortion exceeded only by your vindictive, intolerant resentment.

But do keep on cannibalizing your political allies. The Liberals will love you for it.

Ken Burch

Gee...I wonder who THIS new poster is?

Unionist

Ken, there's a simple way of dealing with phenomena like this.

Ripple

objet_petit_a wrote:

First they came for difference of opinion but I did not speak

I find this remarkable (and, quite frankly, offensive, but not in a flagging sort of way).  Let's not forget what this is about: yes, they did come for difference of opinion and NO ONE SPOKE.

objet_petit_a

Does it look like I'm desperately trying to deny my previous identity here? le sinthome in the post and then choosing a name also unmistakably associated with Lacan???? More interesting is that you pay no attention to the circumstances that resulted in the deactivation of my previous account, requiring me to start another. Do you also believe that "pomposity" is a suitable limit on freedom of expression and reasonable debate? Especially when there is so much disproportionate indignation over someone heavy handedly censoring her own FB Wall. 

BTW I looked at DiNovo's Wall and there are some dissenting comments posted on there. Which leads me to this thought. Assuming you reasonable folk can't accept that one should be allowed to manage one's own FB Wall as one sees fit, what leads you to believe it was all done in the name of censoring disagreement? Perhaps the handful of deleted comments were based on numerological analyses of names, or poor fashion sense, or plain unattractiveness. Or purely arbitrarily?

Unionist

Sorry, Ken, it's my fault. It followed me home, I was nice to it, and now it won't go away. Can I keep it? Pleeeez!!??

 

objet_petit_a

Judging by the sheer volume of drivel you've drooled all over this forum, it would be pretty hard to follow you home when it's apparent you haven't left it in quite some time.

Unionist

Ok, Cheri, give it a rest.

Ken Burch

Unionist wrote:

Sorry, Ken, it's my fault. It followed me home, I was nice to it, and now it won't go away. Can I keep it? Pleeeez!!??

 

Oh all right...but if it does anything on the rug, YOU have to clean it up.

Pages

Topic locked