Mulcair agrees with Harper, debate on women's issues not worth his time

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Mulcair agrees with Harper, debate on women's issues not worth his time

TBC

Pondering

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/24/womens-issues-invisible-th... This time around the Liberals, Bloc Québécois and Green Party are all on board, according to Up for Debate.

The New Democrats had said last year that leader Thomas Mulcair would take part but the party has since declared he won’t participate in any debates at which Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is absent. A source with the Conservative campaign confirmed to the Star that Harper wouldn’t participate in a women’s issues debate.......

Party spokesperson Anne McGrath confirmed that Mulcair won’t attend the Up for Debate event as long as Harper stays away.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I thought Mulcair simply said he wouldn't attend any debate without the PM.

Where and when did he "agree with Harper" or say that a debate wasn't "worth his time"?  Can you share that link?

nicky

You have to take most everything Pondering says with a grain of salt, Magoo. She will say almost anything to promote her hero Justin. She will even claim he is qualified to be PM.

jjuares

Yeah, of course he didn't say that. This thread should obviously be closed.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I think Mulcair is making a mistake not showing up to debates that PM Mussolini isn't present.

Apart from that,I don't think he explicitly stated what this thread is suggesting.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I thought Mulcair simply said he wouldn't attend any debate without the PM.

Where and when did he "agree with Harper" or say that a debate wasn't "worth his time"?  Can you share that link?

Trudeau, Duceppe, and May have all agreed to participate in the debate on women's issues. By their actions they are showing that debating women's issues is important regardless of whether or not Harper chooses to attend.

If Mulcair thought it was worth his time to debate women's issues he wouldn't have made his attendance conditional on Harper's agreement. He already knew that Harper had refused so he knew his condition would rule out the women's issues debate. How else am I supposed to understand that other than Harper's attendance at a debate is more important to Mulcair than debating women's issues?

I hope the debate goes ahead without Harper and Mulcair so that women get a clear message about which parties place a priority on women's issues.

We are an alliance of over 175 women’s organizations and their allies from across Canada, representing more than 4 million people.

We are united in raising awareness about women’s rights in the lead up to the 2015 federal election. Up for Debate calls on all political parties to commit to a federal leaders’ debate on issues identified by women – the first in 30 years, and to make meaningful commitments to change women’s lives for the better, at home and abroad by:

  • Ending violence against women
  • Ending women’s economic inequality
  • Supporting women’s leadership and organizations

See our vision for more information, and join us in taking action.

http://upfordebate.ca/who-we-are

Here is a list of members:

http://upfordebate.ca/sites/upfordebate/files/docs/list_of_alliance_memb...

Mulcair knew who he was turning down.

If Mulcair thought it was worth his time to attend the debate on women's issues he would do it. I don't accept Harper not being there as an adequate excuse for Mulcair's absence.

Read the list of organizations involved. Mulcair knew who he was turning down. It is unconscionable for the NDP to refuse the platform of a national debate on social issues as if it doesn't need the visibility. The NDP should be championing this debate and denouncing Harper for refusing to attend. Instead the NDP is helping Harper torpedo the debate.

I hope women watch the debate in large numbers and that it gets plenty of media coverage. I think a discussion on women's issues between Trudeau, May and Duceppe will be very interesting and more productive without Mulcair and Harper making it overly confrontational.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If Mulcair thought it was worth his time to debate women's issues he wouldn't have made his attendance conditional on Harper's agreement.

And if Mulcair thought it wasn't worth his time to debate women's issues then he could have just said so.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Mulcair "agreeing with Harper" that women's issues "aren't worth his time".

The thread title is simply dishonest.  Intentionally, knowingly and shamelessly dishonest.

NDPP

Women's Issues Debate Called Off After Mulcair Drops Out: Organizers

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/24/womens-issues-debate-called-off-after-mul...

"Liberal candidate Dr Hedy Fry says the excuse that Harper also would not attend the debate doesn't stand up, since we knew Mr Harper was never going to participate,' and that the decision shows the party is more focused on trying to get into power than on sticking up for its traditional values.

'This is 52% of the population - we're not talking about a fringe group,' she said.

'This is not Tommy Douglas's NDP. 'This is not your mother's NDP,' she said. 'This is a very calculating NDP..."

Tom's bad. If the subject was Israel, he'd be there with bells on.

 

jjuares

NDPP wrote:

Women's Issues Debate Called Off After Mulcair Drops Out: Organizers

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/24/womens-issues-debate-called-off-after-mul...

"Liberal candidate Dr Hedy Fry says the excuse that Harper also would not attend the debate doesn't stand up, since we knew Mr Harper was never going to participate,' and that the decision shows the party is more focused on trying to get into power than on sticking up for its traditional values.

'This is 52% of the population - we're not talking about a fringe group,' she said.

'This is not Tommy Douglas's NDP. 'This is not your mother's NDP,' she said. 'This is a very calculating NDP..."

Tom's bad. If the subject was Israel, he'd be there with bells on.

 


Quoting Hedy Fry? Really? Maybe next she will accuse Mulcair of burning crosses.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/minister-apologizes-for-cross-burning-rema...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe had agreed to the debate. Rather than host a debate without the two frontrunners, however, organizers say they will switch gears.

Evidently they too must agree with Harper that this just isn't worth their time.  Or else why cancel?  If they could go ahead without Harper then why not without Mulcair?

I guess they really just don't care much for women's issues or something.  How else am I supposed to understand that??

NDPP

It's no secret that PG and northern BC generally has long had a problem no matter what Hedy Fry apologized for...

Are Prince George White Supremacists Gaining Momentum

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/are-prince-george-whi...

jjuares

NDPP wrote:

It's no secret that PG and northern BC generally has long had a problem no matter what Hedy Fry apologized for...

Are Prince George White Supremacists Gaining Momentum

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/are-prince-george-whi...


Do northern communities have large racism problems? You betcha. Does Hedy Fry say laughable comments? You betcha again. They are not mutually exclusive.

pookie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe had agreed to the debate. Rather than host a debate without the two frontrunners, however, organizers say they will switch gears.

Evidently they too must agree with Harper that this just isn't worth their time.  Or else why cancel?  If they could go ahead without Harper then why not without Mulcair?

I guess they really just don't care much for women's issues or something.  How else am I supposed to understand that??

You understand it as bowing to reality.  They were prepared to debate without Harper.  Mulcair wasn't.  

The optics are horrendous and he will just have to deal with it.  Unlike Harper for whom this was always unimportant.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I guess my question would be why they would cancel the debate if Mulcair doesn't attend, when they wouldn't cancel it if Harper doesn't attend.

I'm rooting for Mulcair, but it would be silly to suggest that he is or should be more significant than the incumbent.

Quote:
The optics are horrendous and he will just have to deal with it.

Or at any rate, the Liberals will try to make it look horrendous.

"He agrees with Harper that women don't matter!!!"

"Women are apparently just not worth his time!!!"

Misfit Misfit's picture

I am not a Liberal, but how many decades ago did Hedy Fry make that mistake about Prince George BC? There comes a time when you just let things drop. And her mistake, which she alologized for, has absolutely no relevance to her comments about Mulcair refusing to debate women's issues. I think the NDP is making a huge mistake by not attending the debate. Even if it is the event organizers who ultimately cancel the debate, Mulcair is going to look bad for not having made an effort to attend. This is going to haunt him for years just like some on this thread are doing with Hedy Fry's mistake and apology.

quizzical

well as a woman i don't really want them "debating" women's issues like they're up for debate or something.

i would like them to just sit down in front of the cameras have a coffee, or whatever beverage they want, and ask us by phone call in response what us women feel needs addressing and how we think it could be achieved or worked on. and if there's no response pack it up and go home.

having a debate over FN's issues is  about as sane as having a debate over women's.

if he was going i might've sent him a message stating my huge pissed offness about giving an appearance  setting a notion women's isssues are up for debate for validity or not.

quizzical

oh ya, and 7 men and pondering outraged  i tell ya outraged in the feminist forum makes a statement, none of it good imv.

sherpa-finn

I presume Mulcair learned from the experience of the UK election debate that the sitting PM refused to attend.  And turned into a collective beating up on the Leader of the Opposition by the leaders of the other, smaller parties. It did not go well for Mr Miliband (no longer Leader of HM's Loyal Opposition).

So, not pretty - but probably a good call in terms of campaign realpolitik. 

And next election, I betcha PM Mulcair will most certainly attend a debate on women's issues, and will let the others decide if they want to join.    

ETA: Just noticed this is in the Feminism thread, not the general politics Election 2015 thread. Apologies. Happy to have my gender-blind contribution struck from the record.

pookie

quizzical wrote:

oh ya, and 7 men and pondering outraged  i tell ya outraged in the feminist forum makes a statement, none of it good imv.

Nice try.  Many more people than that I'm afraid.

And perhaps kindly enlighten us as to the meaning of the bolded?  

Misfit Misfit's picture

And why did Pondering put this in the Feminist forum in the first place? This thread belongs in the Election forum. Women's issues are not 'special interest' issues. They are mainstream election campaign issues just like the economy, jobs, taxes, national security, First Nations issues, funding for social programs, environmental issues, funding for municipalities, etc. Pondering framed the thread title to be a partisan political debate, and it should not have been placed in a forum which excludes partisan discussion and input from men.

quizzical

it's pretty self-evident sherpa got it.

quizzical

i agree misfit. i just don't think they need a individual debate.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unfortunately, I haven't heard of any women's issues discussed so far in this election. All the major political parties are conspicuously silent on issues facing women. It seems that the only way these issues do get addressed is by having a formal debate which forces the leaders to discuss the issues which are important to women and take notice. The options are debate vs. deafening silence.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I think the thread title is hyperbole, of course, but accurately reflects the thoughts of the women I know when they learned about this ridiculous decision by Mulcair. Since when is it a good idea for Mulcair let Harper set the agenda, both tactically and politically? Who made Mulcair paint himself into a corner with his "no Harper, no debate" ultimatum? Who decided that this childish gambit wasn't utterly cynical and undemocratic -- the exact opposite of the open, "new politics" that so enamoured Canadians to the NDP in the first place?

I came here because I wanted to know how on earth NDP partisans would defend this ludicrous, short-sighted move. And now I see they don't: they just insult, demean, distract and move on. Business as usual, I guess.

Also:

pookie wrote:
The optics are horrendous and he will just have to deal with it.  Unlike Harper for whom this was always unimportant.

x100 

pookie

quizzical wrote:

it's pretty self-evident sherpa got it.

Is "gender-blindness" now the gold standard for posting on rabble in the New World Order of the NDP?

Colour-blindness will be next, I presume.

pookie

The hostility to feminism and the feminist forum has been going on for years, but for some reason this thread has really brought me up short.  

I am appalled.

Misfit Misfit's picture

BTW. I think Hedy Fry is a brilliant lady. Her academic background is phenomenal. She has worked very hard in her capacity as an MD and as an MP to create a better society for all Canadians. I like her social values, and I have a lot of respect for her. She is one of the few Liberals I would be pleased to see get re-elected.

mark_alfred

It's a shame the Up For Debate debate isn't happening.  I was hoping it would.  I enjoy watching debates, and I had looked forward to this one.

Catchfire wrote:

Since when is it a good idea for Mulcair let Harper set the agenda, both tactically and politically? Who made Mulcair paint himself into a corner with his "no Harper, no debate" ultimatum?

[..]

I came here because I wanted to know how on earth NDP partisans would defend this ludicrous, short-sighted move.

Some of us partisans discussed these issues in detail a while ago in the Canadian Politics section of Babble (primarily focusing on the Consortium debate, but that also applied to other debates).  Most were of the opinion that the more exposure Mulcair got, the better.  But not all.  Some felt strategically it was a mistake to engage in a debate without the main competitor present (that being Harper), pointing to the UK election as an example.  Admittedly, I was somewhat swayed by these arguments.  But anyway, the debate over debates happened a while ago in the CanPoli section of Babble.

Apparently the Up For Debate organizers are still going to do something to highlight women's issues in this election.  Link:

The Canadian Press wrote:

Mulcair has said he won’t take part in any leaders’ debates without Harper.

The NDP says Mulcair was the first of the major party leaders to agree in principle to the debate and has been working with Up for Debate, looking for other ways to highlight women’s issues through the campaign.

Debate spokeswoman Melanie Gallant says organizers are now looking into doing one-on-one interviews with the leaders and releasing the videos of those interviews at an event on the date the debate would have gone ahead.

There was also a tweet from Up For Debate, which read:

Quote:

Up for Debate ‏@UpforDebate2015 8 hrs8 hours ago

Without all five leaders, we're moving to plan B to ensure women are a focus in this election. More news soon #UpForDebate

sherpa-finn

Just for the record....

I work for one of the organizations that is a member of the Up for Debate coalition. We sent delegations to all of the federal parties months back to promote the idea of a leaders debate on women's issues.  Follow-up meetings were held with the women's caucuses of both the Liberals and NDP, as well as representatives of the other parties. 

The NDP and Greens were first to agree to participate ... the Bloq followed.  Justin refused to commit for the Liberal Party for several month, ostensibly (a couple of his MPs told us) until such time as Harper would also agree to participate.  Without Harper and Trudeau, the initiative limped forward, only to be abruptly overtaken by the flurry of other debate proposals with media and corporate sponsors. 

By which time the political scene had also changed significantly ... all of a sudden the NDP had supplanted the Liberals as the leading opposition party in the polls, and the political dynamics had reversed. Now Trudeau quickly signed on to the women's debate, but only after all the other debates had been lined up and 'confirmed'.  Mulcair (as the new PM-in-waiting) similarly saw that the political context had changed, and adopted the old Liberal line of "only if Harper attends".

So, not a particularly edifying process from any partisan perspective. But the simple if coarse machinations of campaign realpolitik, with (IMHO) very little - if any - consideration for either women's issues or women's organizations. 

quizzical

pookie i don't know what you're talking about. i was indicating all the men in feminist forum telling us women they were outraged and pondering is using it for partisan politics. not a  positive use of feminist space.  how about we have a debate about people using it this way?

i don't agree with men debating women's issues to see if they are valid or not in a stand alone event and i see the last time it happened was 30 years ago in 1984. i was 5 then.

sherpa-finn

Up for Debate campaign moving to 'Plan B' to ensure women are a focus in elections

Ottawa, August 25th 2015— The Up for Debate campaign announced today that it has confirmation from four major parties to explore an alternative debate format to put women at the centre of Canada’s federal election campaign. It is still hoping for confirmation from the fifth.

Ann Decter, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the YWCA and Up For Debate campaign spokesperson, said: “We remain determined to put women's issues at the centre of this election.”

“It may not be the debate we first imagined – but an alternative can get all party leaders speaking on the record to issues that matter to women. And it will still be the first time that happens in 30 years.”

Up for Debate has agreement from the New Democratic Party, the Greens, the Liberals and the Bloc to have leaders participate in one on one interviews, with questions focused exclusively on women.

The exclusive interviews will be released on September 21st at a live event at Toronto’s Isabel Bader Theatre, along with comment and analysis.

Up for Debate continues to urge leaders to put women's issues on the map throughout the entire election - in the other debates and on the campaign trail. Campaign supporters are also engaging candidates and the general public across the country to make sure that issues impacting women and girls are part of the national discussion in the lead-up to the election.

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:

The NDP and Greens were first to agree to participate ... the Bloq followed.  Justin refused to commit for the Liberal Party for several month, ostensibly (a couple of his MPs told us) until such time as Harper would also agree to participate.  Without Harper and Trudeau, the initiative limped forward, only to be abruptly overtaken by the flurry of other debate proposals with media and corporate sponsors.

Well it seems they didn't know what they were talking about because Trudeau has agreed to debates without Harper whereas the NDP has made it a condition.

Mulcair has gone back on his word to make some lame point about Harper being his only competition which makes Mulcair's priorities clear to me.

As to putting it in the feminist forum, I don't mind if a mod would rather put it in the election topic but to me it is pertinent to feminists that both the NDP and the Conservatives have refused to attend the debate on women's issues while the Bloc, Greens and Liberals accepted.

I hope whatever the Up for Debate plan is that it excludes Harper and Mulcair to highlight thelack of priority they place on discussing women's issues.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

This is one of those times where you can't blame the Liberals.

You can spin it any which way you like but Mulcair's supremely dumb decision to play along with Harper's rules does not help the party.

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If Mulcair thought it was worth his time to debate women's issues he wouldn't have made his attendance conditional on Harper's agreement.

And if Mulcair thought it wasn't worth his time to debate women's issues then he could have just said so.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Mulcair "agreeing with Harper" that women's issues "aren't worth his time".

The thread title is simply dishonest.  Intentionally, knowingly and shamelessly dishonest.


This merits repeating because it gives us an idea of how this issue should not be approached.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If Mulcair thought it was worth his time to debate women's issues he wouldn't have made his attendance conditional on Harper's agreement.

And if Mulcair thought it wasn't worth his time to debate women's issues then he could have just said so.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Mulcair "agreeing with Harper" that women's issues "aren't worth his time".

The thread title is simply dishonest.  Intentionally, knowingly and shamelessly dishonest.

It isn't even a tiny bit dishonest. If Mulcair thought it was worth his time he wouldn't have refused based on Harper not attending. Obviously he thinks Harper attending is the only good enough reason to go to a debate. That it is about women's issues isn't enough of a motivation. If Mulcair did consider it worth his time he would agree to attend, not use the debate as a means of declaring Harper his only competition.

 

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If Mulcair thought it was worth his time to debate women's issues he wouldn't have made his attendance conditional on Harper's agreement.

And if Mulcair thought it wasn't worth his time to debate women's issues then he could have just said so.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Mulcair "agreeing with Harper" that women's issues "aren't worth his time".

The thread title is simply dishonest.  Intentionally, knowingly and shamelessly dishonest.

It isn't even a tiny bit dishonest. If Mulcair thought it was worth his time he wouldn't have refused based on Harper not attending. Obviously he thinks Harper attending is the only good enough reason to go to a debate. That it is about women's issues isn't enough of a motivation. If Mulcair did consider it worth his time he would agree to attend, not use the debate as a means of declaring Harper his only competition.

 


Even the mods commented on your use of hyperbole in the title. I mean this sincerely, Pondering, if you were to make more of an effort to be more accurate and forthright in your posts you could be a better advocate for the Liberal Party. You seem to believe by exaggerating and spinning every little point you advance your cause but this example should be instructive. I believe Mulcair should have participated and I believe he didn't for crass political reasons. And if you had made that argument that would have been persuasive but unfortunately you undermined your argument with an equally crass and dishonest title.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
  Even the mods commented on your use of hyperbole in the title. I mean this sincerely, Pondering, if you were to make more of an effort to be more accurate and forthright in your posts you could be a better advocate for the Liberal Party. You seem to believe by exaggerating and spinning every little point you advance your cause but this example should be instructive. I believe Mulcair should have participated and I believe he didn't for crass political reasons. And if you had made that argument that would have been persuasive but unfortunately you undermined your argument with an equally crass and dishonest title.

Catchfire, not the mods, and while mods are godly within the confines of the board they are not actually godly so their pronouncements don't fall under the category of "absolutely aways right to the letter in every comment". Catchfire also said this:

Catchfire wrote:
I think the thread title is hyperbole, of course, but accurately reflects the thoughts of the women I know when they learned about this ridiculous decision by Mulcair.

Which indicates why I put this thread here not in the Elections 2015 forum. I place greater significance on what feminists think about this ploy by Mulcair. Without Harper the debate would have continued. Because of Mulcair the debate has been cancelled.

That it accurately reflects the thoughts of the women he knows suggests to me that to women, it isn't hyperbole. The NDP weighted the importance of a debate on women's issues against the importance of a cheap political maneuver and decided the political maneuver was more important.

Catchfire also said this:

Catchfire wrote:
I came here because I wanted to know how on earth NDP partisans would defend this ludicrous, short-sighted move. And now I see they don't: they just insult, demean, distract and move on. Business as usual, I guess.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

This was indeed discussed already.

Here's what Pondering had to say when Justin wouldn't commit to participating in this debate:

Quote:
I would have liked it if he had agreed right away but I am not surprised that he hasn't. Politically he has probably made the right decision. Unless Harper agrees it would be a negative for Trudeau to participate with only May and Mulcair.

For some reason I'm not seeing anything about Saint Justin "agreeing with Harper" that women "aren't worth his time".

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

This was indeed discussed already.

Here's what Pondering had to say when Justin wouldn't commit to participating in this debate:

Quote:
I would have liked it if he had agreed right away but I am not surprised that he hasn't. Politically he has probably made the right decision. Unless Harper agrees it would be a negative for Trudeau to participate with only May and Mulcair.

For some reason I'm not seeing anything about Saint Justin "agreeing with Harper" that women "aren't worth his time".

You're right, but I did say I would have liked him to agree right away, and he had not refused at that time.

I was wrong to think it would be politically better for Trudeau not to participate if only May and Mulcair were present. 

So, if you interest is in proving me wrong about stuff, or partisan, congratulations.

It has no impact on the bottomline which is that Trudeau has accepted and Mulcair has declined.

 

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/25/elizabeth-may-thomas-mulcair-wom...

Elizabeth May has blasted the federal NDP leader for failing to call Stephen Harper's "bluff" not to attend a leaders' debate on women's issues that has since been cancelled.

In fact, the Green Party leader says Thomas Mulcair let Harper "off the hook."

"Tom Mulcair will wear this and I'm begging him to reconsider," she told reporters Tuesday in British Columbia.

A spokeswoman for Up for Debate — organized by a coalition of women's groups — announced this week that the event scheduled for Sept. 21 was scrapped because Mulcair and Harper both ruled out participating.

All five leaders had been invited to the Toronto debate. Mulcair had agreed to attend in principle, but the NDP leader has since said it doesn't make sense to take part in debates without Harper.

May suggested to reporters Tuesday that the image of the Conservative leader's empty chair at the debate could have sent a powerful signal.

She also had some advice for Mulcair.

May said it wasn't "smart politics" for the NDP leader to "decide that it doesn't matter to debate women's issues" while also accepting invites to events hosted by The Globe and Mail, TVA, and the Munk Debates that exclude the only female leader of a federal party.

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
The thread title is simply dishonest.  Intentionally, knowingly and shamelessly dishonest.

I think the thread title describes the situation very well.

mark_alfred

I enjoy debates, and think it's too bad that this one is not going to happen.  But really, debates are just adversarial verbal sparring matches where the goal is not to educate about policy positions, but rather to get a good quip in.  So I think Up For Debate's Plan B might be potentially even better.  More details here:  http://upfordebate.ca/node/52

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Evidently they too must agree with Harper that this just isn't worth their time.  Or else why cancel?  If they could go ahead without Harper then why not without Mulcair? I guess they really just don't care much for women's issues or something.  How else am I supposed to understand that??

No that's correct.  They were willing to use women's 'issues' as a prop to facilitate hearing themselves speak, as if whatever they had to say was actually of any importance to women's 'issues,' but since they won't be on an important stage anymore debating with supposedly 'important' people, women and their 'issues' are not so important after all, for any of them.  It's as I and others have been saying, that this circus we're being shown is only fit for clowns and jesters to do their thing, but when the clowns won't even show up for work you begin to wonder what kind of circus is it that refuses to entertain.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I was wrong to think it would be politically better for Trudeau not to participate if only May and Mulcair were present.

Do you believe that it showed that Justin didn't care about women's issues?

If not, why do you think it shows that Mulcair doesn't?

Whether the strategy of declining to debate is good, bad or indifferent, you still want to believe that Trudeau was doing it strategically, but Mulcair is doing it because he doesn't care about women.  I think you're wrong about that too.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

This was indeed discussed already.

Here's what Pondering had to say when Justin wouldn't commit to participating in this debate:

Quote:
I would have liked it if he had agreed right away but I am not surprised that he hasn't. Politically he has probably made the right decision. Unless Harper agrees it would be a negative for Trudeau to participate with only May and Mulcair.

For some reason I'm not seeing anything about Saint Justin "agreeing with Harper" that women "aren't worth his time".

You're right, but I did say I would have liked him to agree right away, and he had not refused at that time.

I was wrong to think it would be politically better for Trudeau not to participate if only May and Mulcair were present. 

So, if you interest is in proving me wrong about stuff, or partisan, congratulations.

It has no impact on the bottomline which is that Trudeau has accepted and Mulcair has declined.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I was thinking more like:

[IMG]http://i60.tinypic.com/2ajuyo2.jpg[/IMG]

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

This was indeed discussed already.

Here's what Pondering had to say when Justin wouldn't commit to participating in this debate:

Quote:
I would have liked it if he had agreed right away but I am not surprised that he hasn't. Politically he has probably made the right decision. Unless Harper agrees it would be a negative for Trudeau to participate with only May and Mulcair.

For some reason I'm not seeing anything about Saint Justin "agreeing with Harper" that women "aren't worth his time".

You're right, but I did say I would have liked him to agree right away, and he had not refused at that time.

I was wrong to think it would be politically better for Trudeau not to participate if only May and Mulcair were present. 

So, if you interest is in proving me wrong about stuff, or partisan, congratulations.

It has no impact on the bottomline which is that Trudeau has accepted and Mulcair has declined.

Heh.  A picture is a thousand words, as they say.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Is it too much to ask that the men in this thread who are truly invested in the belief that the real reason Mulcair flip flopped on participating in Up For Debate has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with him treating women's issues lightly (or, say, "with contempt"), at least, if they are unwilling to let up on making that point, repeatedly, and with scorn, could they refrain from ganging up on the few women in this thread who aren't quite as convinced (irrespective of their political affiliation, which, as we know, renders them unable to be Serious about Serious topics and Serious strategy points)?

Love, the Feminist Forum.

mark_alfred

Here's an NDP statement on Up For Debate's Plan B:  http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-debate-proposal-to-discuss-womens-i...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I absolutely think Mulcair is being dismissive of womens issues and is making a mistake by not attending the debate.

As for the partisan spin that is evident in this thread I purposefully chose an image that represents a heart with an embedded peace sign. Love and peace to all partisans who have to bob and weave and twist and shout.

Pages