Canadian Jews condemn suppression of criticism of Israel

133 posts / 0 new
Last post
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Today all of downtown Toronto was filled with Tamil-Canadians waving Tamil Tiger flags. Why should these people care about what happens in Sri Lanka? Why can't they just be Canadians and let the Tamils in Sri Lanka fight their own battles?

 

You can't be fucking serious? 

Unionist

Quote:

It's hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.

Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.

To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.

For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.

DrConway

This reminds me of the guy that used to go "I AM WARNING YOU!"

"YOU ARE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE!"

"YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO YOURSELF"

Well, he got his wish; now, Anti-Semitism is such a common accusation nobody believes it.

 

St. Paul's Prog...

Stockholm wrote:

It may surprise people to know that I for the most part agree with the letter. However, I don't know that I would accuse the Star and the Globe of "refusing to print" it. The fact is that newspapers get HUNDREDS of unsolicited articles, petitions and press releases a day - only one or two of which make it into the paper. Just because they don't choose to publish this doesn't mean that its some sort of conspiracy.

I'm not sure what you do this this document if you are a newspaper. It reads like a long, long letter to the editor or maybe a news release - but newspapers NEVER public letters to the editor or news releases that are anywhere near that long. I've also never heard of a major newspaper publishing a petition free of charge. It could never be an op-ed piece because it isn't written in the journalistic style of that either - there is no analysis - just a petition style rant (much of which I agree with - but that doesn't make it journalism).

I suggest to the people behind this letter that they follow one of two strategies. Either raise money to run the letter the petition as a full page ad in the paper, OR get ONE of the signatories who knows how to write and who is well-known (like maybe Naomi Klein) to submit a journalist-style commentary that is a suitable op-ed piece. Something like that would probably have a very good chance of being published.

But you can't blame a newspaper for not publishing a petition free of charge. They never do that for anyone.

If signatories offered to buy ad space and the newspapers refused to publish the letter, THEN I would agree that the newspapers have done something wrong. But they are not under obligation to give free space to anyone.

Well said, Stockholm.  I'm all for Canadian Jews critical of Israeli policy speaking out.   I agree with much of the statement as well.  However I don't buy that they are victims of political discrimination because the papers won't publish the letter.  Having an oped rather than a treatise is the way to go.

It is deeply concerning that Ignatieff has decided to become identical to the Tories on Israel.  We have become like the U.S. where both major parties support Israel uncritically, in an effort to get Jewish votes and money.

Stockholm

Its not about money. When the most anyone can donate to a party is $1,000 a year - its not a factor.

Cueball Cueball's picture

It's not about Jewish votes or money. That said, the public relations machine behind the Israeli cause is extremely well financed. Well financed enough to sow enough confusion that it is difficult for politicians to take a clear stand on what is otherwise a clear cut position on human rights. At the same time right wingers can parade their sympathy for Jews (as emobdied in the state of Israel) as some kind of badge that proves they are supportive of minority causes.

Very convenient to be able to assert this status as an anti-racist, while appealing to society wide sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust, and the patriotic legacy that this stands on (as if we actually went to war to end Nazi racial policies LOLOLOLO), while at the same time supporting reactionary policies on other scores.

Note for example, Harper's immigration policies. Plenty of milage to be gained from making a big deal about ones support for the "Jewish" state, and the appeal is actually largely among the gentile right, not Jews.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Btw, no one said anything about newspaper being obligated to publish anything. I see you never miss a point, to miss the point. Typical Stockholm evasion and distraction. And look! It works some idiot has come along to agree with you even though its a straw man -- keep spinning, Stockybaba. What people noted was that newspapers are more than willing to pick up the offal offered up by right wing fringe Jewish organizations, even the JDL, which is on the FBI terror list, and treat it as serious commentary, but don't seem to find the time of day to publish views opposite to those, from respected persons. In other words the mainstream media has a bias.

Your trying to say that newspapers don't have bias? I'll be looking for your bitching and moaning about the "media bias" after the NDP loses yet another election.

I am always impressed with how well you absorb and then regurgitate reactionary tropes, when you find yourself on the "right" side of the line. The "no obligation to publish line" is exactly what we hear when the press is ignoring the moustache. ROFL.

Stockholm

These so-called rightwing fringe Jewish organizations, were smart enough to get a writer to write an opinion piece that is suitable for an op-ed page. They aren't as stupid as the other side which thinks that all they have to do is draw up a petition and send it in to the Globe and expect it to be published for free. You're comparing apples with oranges.

If you want an ARTICLE published then send in an ARTICLE not a petition. Newspapers absolutely never publish petitions for free. Its as simple as that.

aka Mycroft

Setting the petition aside, I believe the opinion piece written by Judy Rebick and Alan Sears a few weeks ago and published by rabble.ca was first offered to the Globe and Mail and, I assume, the Toronto Star who turned it down - and Judy certainly knows how to write publishable pieces so the problem wasn't with the quality of writing or format. I also know that past attempts to have actual op ed pieces (not petitions) published in the Star and Globe have been turned down - ACJC (IJV's predecessor) had it's main opinion piece turned down by the Globe and Star until the Winnipeg Free Press picked it up thanks to Cy Gonick's intervention.

Unionist

I should never have included that first paragraph in the OP - I should have just reprinted the statement itself. That would have prevented Stockholm from torpedoing discussion about suppression of criticism of Israel in the media. The fact that the statement might have been rejected as an op-ed or not (and I have no direct personal knowledge of that) is irrelevant. It clearly wasn't written as an op-ed.

The plain fact that Stockholm and other pro-Israeli babblers wish to ignore is that the entire mainstream media connects Jews (especially Canadian Jews) with Israel in a manner which can only be described as antisemitic. It would be like connecting Canadian Muslims with Saudi Arabia or al-Qaeda. Or, identifying ordinary Canadian Catholic families with the criminal behaviour of the Vatican. That is the crucial issue which needs to be explored here.

Caissa

Unionist: I presume this phenomenon is tied to the concept of Diaspora.

aka Mycroft

Here are a few responses to a recent assertion of the anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism canard at the National Post.

Quote:

           
 

Re:  George Burger: Anti-Semitism and its enablers

George Burger’s indiscriminate use of the term “anti-Semite” is an insult to the memories of the millions of Jewish dead who have been murdered in the name of real anti-Semitism.  (“Anti-Semitism and its enables, Feb. 24.)
 
According to Burger, not only is Sid Ryan an anti-Semite, but so is CUPE, the York University student union, the entire York University administration, and every last individual who has “enabled” them by not denouncing them all as anti-Semites.  What about the hundreds of Jews across Canada who have supported CUPE in its boycott campaign or organized Israeli Apartheid Weeks on campuses or who stand in vigil every week outside the Israeli consulate in protest.  Are they all anti-Semites?  Can there be that many Jewish anti-Semites?   
 
When everyone is anti-Semitic, then no one is anti-Semitic.  It’s bad enough that Burger can’t distinguish between opposition to the policies of the Israeli state and real Jewish oppression, but he’s taken a serious accusation and diluted to the point of meaninglessness so that no one can take it seriously.   
 
Jason Kunin
Toronto, Ont

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

 
George Burger’s viscious attack on Sid Ryan is nothing short of slander and as a Jew I am embarassed that Burger would thoughtlessly make this most serious of accusations. If Burger disagrees with the boycott, divestment, sanctions call against Israel he should use logic and facts in his argument rather than sling slurs. The fact is that the union movement has called for sanctions in the past against countries or states that violate human rights. There are currently calls to boycott Utah for its opposition to same-sex rights. Does this mean those who support a boycott are anti-Mormon? The union movement boycotted Chile for its human rights abuses under Chile. Does this make them anti-Hispanic? Furthermore, it is normal for sanctions (or worse) to be imposed on countries that violate UN resolutions. Israel is violating a number of resolutions regarding both the occupation of the West Bank and in particular the continued construction of settlements despite international opposition. That the world community is not taking action to force Israel’s compliance with UN resolutions means that Israel is being treated as an exception. If Burger is serious in wanting Israel to be treated like every other nation he should be applauding Sid Ryan, not calling him names.
 
Andy Lehrer
Toronto, Ont 

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

George Burger confuses anti-Semitism with criticism towards Israel. It is very interesting that one can criticize any country for human right violations, but if one is to speak up about war crimes and human right violations committed by Israel, one is to be called Anti-Semite. Sid Ryan has raised his voice and is active in protecting human rights in Ireland, Sudan and many other places, but when it comes to Palestinian human rights, he is attacked by people like George Burger. Maybe he believes that by demonizing Mr. Ryan he can silence him and keep it all under control. Unfortunately, the grave atrocities committed by Israel again and again speak from themselves and also the Canadian public is not that stupid. I am one of the women who has been standing in front of the Israeli consulate for the last nine years. We are there to alert and educate the Canadian public about the over sixty years of occupation in Palestine. I proudly do so.   

Smadar Carmon
Toronto, Ont

 

 

Stockholm

Unionist, I'm not sure why you're trying to group me with the "Israel can do no wrong crowd". The first thing I said was that I would have been willing to sign the petition!!  What more do you want?

Meanwhile in today's Toronto Star, there is a lengthy op-ed piece by Haroon Siddiqui thattalks about howout of tune the Liberal/Conservative line on the Middle East is with Canadian public opinion and he adds:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/604583 

"A combative declaration was issued last week by 160 Jewish Canadians, including Anton Kuerti, Ursula Franklin, Naomi Klein, Meyer Brownstone (recipient of the Pearson Peace Medal) and Judith Deutsch, president of the Canadian group, Science for Peace.

"We are appalled by recent attempts ... to silence protest against Israel. We are alarmed by the escalation of fear tactics (which) bring the anti-Communist terror of the 1950s vividly to mind."

But both Deutsch and Sears say they feel far less lonely these days than they used to.

"There has been a real shift over the last few years where being a marginalized troublemaker is less marginalized and more acceptable," Sears said."

 

I know, I know, you'll say its just "tokenism" on the part of the Star to publish an op-ed piece that you agree with 100%. You would you rather that they not run columns like that at all - so you could go back to the security blanket of screaming that the media is so biased and will never publish any alternate points of view??

 

Skinny Dipper

I will side with Stockholm on his comment. (#59)

In my opinion, there was a lot of great infomation in the petition.  Unfortunately, it was a petition and not a commentary even though the petition had commentary elements.  If people want petitions published in a newspaper, they will need to buy ad space.  It may not seem fair, but it's business.

Xengine

Quote:
You mean the 20% of Israelis who are Arab? Nope.

Or are they rich?

My understanding is that Israel had a large influx of people fleeing the economic conditions in the fomer Soviet Union during the financial collapse there. Those folks came to make up 20% of the Israeli population and were mostly on the lower economic rungs.  They actually took a lot of the slots that the Arab Israelis filled. Maybe the poster referred to that demographic. 

aka Mycroft

Much of the cheap labour previously provided by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza has been provided since the early 90s by foreign workers on temporary work permits.

Stockholm

Newspapers are all in such dire financial straights that I think there is ZERO chance that they would refuse to run a PAID full page ad that consisted of the petition above. I think the only place they would draw the line would be if the ad called for more suicide bombings and was a clear incitement to violence 9which it obviously isn't) (and even then Can West is so close to bankruptcy, they might not even turn their nose up at that).

Stockholm

In the past the Toronto Star (which is extremely progressive on social issues like same sex marriage etc...) has run ads from evangelical Christian groups denouncing same sex marriage. I think that as long as an ad is in good taste (ie: nothing from Rev. Phelps) - if you want to pay for it - its yours.

contrarianna

A single page ad is a drop in the bucket lost in the arterial gushing of red ink.  The inevitable threats to withdraw advertising would far outweigh it.

It would be an interesting experiment to try, however.
I would recommend that
a) the wording of the petition be made "bullet proof" because the attacks on it will be extensive, regardless.
b) that it be known there will be an addendum, that lists the newspapers that did refuse.

 

contrarianna

As a petition, the organizers could ask for donations for the ads, if they had a forum for doing so, (Rabble?). However, even that would not guartantee the ads would be run in the print megamedia outlets. I would doubt the Nat Post and CanWest Global papers would run it (that excludes most of BC)  given their clear editorial policies on the Middle East.  The Globe & Mail would also be somewhat doubtful.

Here is an excerpt on the legal status of rejecting ads.  

"....What is particularly noteworthy about The Globe's position is that it had the legal right to arbitrarily reject the advertisement in question. That was the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1974 advertising case involving such a rejection by the Vancouver Sun.

In that case, the Supreme Court stated that a newspaper is able to refuse to publish an advertisement on the mere basis that the material being advertised offends its editorial position. Justice Martland, speaking for the Court's majority, stated the law as follows. "The law has recognized the freedom of the press to propagate its views and ideas on any issue and to select the material which it publishes. As a corollary to that, a newspaper also has the right to refuse to publish material which runs contrary to the views which it expresses...."

http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/news-mag-1997-12.htm

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Unionist, I'm not sure why you're trying to group me with the "Israel can do no wrong crowd". The first thing I said was that I would have been willing to sign the petition!!  What more do you want?

Stockholm, I described you as "pro-Israeli" - not as "pro-Likud". Surely you would accept that labelling?

As for "what more do you want", I wanted a discussion of how the MSM constantly identifies Jews with Israel, and how it suppresses criticism of Israel even when it comes from "personalities" who are otherwise newsworthy. What I did NOT want was a debate as to the precise form an article should take in order to be publishable. But because I included that foolish first para in the OP, I guess I got what I asked for, and people seem to be far more excited about the stylistic issue than the substantive one.

 

Caissa

Okay, let's deal with the substantive issue Unionist. I wonder if the concept of the Diaspora with the subtext that Jews outside of Israel are not in their natural place contributes to the phenomenon you are describing.

Stockholm

In a world where fifth generation Irish-Americans were up until very recently passing the hat for donations to the IRA in bars in Boston - why should it come as a surprise that a certain segment of Jewish-Canadians feel strongly about Israel.

DrConway

Any of that sort of financing of sectarian violence by emigres is deplorable, IMV.

Benjamin

Stockholm wrote:
In a world where fifth generation Irish-Americans were up until very recently passing the hat for donations to the IRA in bars in Boston ...

source?

ohara

Its much more than a "certain segment" Stockholm

Saber

Unionist wrote:

Quote:

It's hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.

Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.

To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.

For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.

I think the author is saying that it is more difficult as a Jew, to voice criticism of Israel now, than it used to be; that Jewish identity is much more closely identified with Israel now, than it was when the state was younger.

I wonder how much of this change in identity is due to pressure form corporate American Media?  The United States as we know, benefits from Israel's financial dependence on US money and armaments.  Basically, Israel has no choice but to represent American interests in that region of the world.  It works out very well for the United States.  Israel takes a lot of heat for US policies in the Middle East.  I can see why the American media would be very opposed to representations of Jewish identity that are independent of Israel; or worse, voices of Jewish people who are not supportive of Israel.  It would ring as un-American.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:
Okay, let's deal with the substantive issue Unionist. I wonder if the concept of the Diaspora with the subtext that Jews outside of Israel are not in their natural place contributes to the phenomenon you are describing.

Caissa, I am convinced you have a point there. Listen to what the OP statement said:

Quote:
We are appalled by recent attempts of prominent Jewish organizations and leading Canadian politicians to silence protest against the State of Israel. [...]

B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have pressured university presidents and administrations to silence debate and discussion specifically regarding Palestine/Israel. In a full-page ad in a national newspaper, B'nai Brith urged donors to withhold funds from universities because "anti-Semitic hate fests" were being allowed on campuses. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have echoed these arguments.

What do the B'nai Brith and Jason Kenney / Stephen Harper have in common?

Harper and Kenney hate Jews. They would freak out and die if someone in their family married one. They publicly connect Jews with the crimes of Israel. They believe that the homeland of Jews is not Canada. They are antisemites.

All the above applies to B'nai Brith, except the marriage part. They also hate Jews who are non-Zionist or (like me) anti-Zionist. They (like JDL) would suppress Jews who tell the ugly truth about Israel. They, like Harper and Kenney, are ultra-right fanatics.

So Caissa, you may be right. The Jews who cherish the Diaspora - that is, who are and want to be one with the peoples of the world, rather than a species apart, spiritually, politically, or geographically - are the hated targets of the B'nai Brith and the Jason Kenneys. Yet the Diaspora Jews are the ones celebrated throughout history for contributing to the progress and enlightenment of humanity. This is what these forces of darkness fear the most.

It's no accident to see the names of Jews who sign statements like these in Canada, the U.K., and elsewhere. They are scientists and artists and musicians and progressive political figures. They are the "light unto the nations", the best that Judaism has had to offer over the centuries. They are not Frank Dimant or Ariel Sharon.

 

 

aka Mycroft

I haven't seen it yet but I believe it's in today's NOW Magazine as an ad.

Lord Palmerston

A sematnic point - the title of this thread should be "Jewish Canadians (as opposed to "Canadian Jews") condemn suppression of criticism of Israel.   Canadian Jews implies that they are Jews who just happen to live in Canada (but it's not their "homeland") while Jewish Canadians clearly implies a Canadian nationality with a Jewish ethnic identity.

Unionist

LP, I think I understand your nuance, but have you ever referred to anyone as a Catholic Canadian?

Google tests:

"Catholic Canadians" - 1,250 hits

"Canadian Catholics" - 15,700 hits

"Jewish Canadians" - 13,100

"Canadian Jews" - 30,900

Interesting... bizarre, in fact. Oh well, that's material for another thread.

 

 

 

Lord Palmerston

No, but I haven't heard the term "Canadian-Italian" either.  I guess in the case of Jews it's more complicated because it's both an ethnic identity and a religion.

Unionist

LP, when I was a kid, I clearly remember the word "Jew" being considered as impolite in the media and elsewhere. Instead of saying "they're Jews", one would say, "they're Jewish". No such opprobrium attached to "she's a Catholic" or "he's an Anglican".

Haven't thought about it recently, but it seems to me that "Jewish Canadians" sounds so much more polite than "Canadian Jews".

You're right, though - being Jewish isn't exactly akin to being Catholic or being Italian or being black (which is now African Canadian I guess), so linguistically it has its own dynamic. 

Saber

It seems to me that Jewish people suffer because of a political dynamic that oppresses Blacks and other marginalized groups.  When a group is marginalized, there is usually less political maneuverability.   Within a marginalized group there can be great pressure to conform to the most promising leaders and ideology at the time.  If you question them you are seen as betraying the cause, even if you are only trying to enrich the general critique and dialogue. You hear about this happening within the Black community.  Many people within the Black community feel pressured to blanketly support popular leaders whose ideas they may question because, for instance, they may be chauvinistic,  just as people in the Jewish community feel pressured to support Israel regardless of concerns they may have over the Palestinians or the wisdom of maintaining such a costly occupation. When Unionist talks about  B'nai Brith practicing a kind of and-Semitism because they are denying the right of other Jewish people to express their political views, he's got a point. Zionism is analogous to other liberation ideologies that can be very constraining and oppressive of the people identified with its cause.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

What is marginalized about Jewish people in contemporary Canadian society?

Unionist

Jews are viewed as foreigners, with a foreign "homeland", by the Canadian government. It is the oldest anti-Jewish canard in the world - the strange wandering folk of "divided loyalties". 

They are portrayed as agents and allies of Israel, which gives rise to criminal assaults, vandalism, and arson against Jewish sites.

They are no more and no less "marginalized" (whatever that term means) than Jews were in pre-1933 Germany.

 

Lord Palmerston

Cueball wrote:
Plenty of milage to be gained from making a big deal about ones support for the "Jewish" state, and the appeal is actually largely among the gentile right, not Jews.

You're right to raise the point about certain elements of the non-Jewish right - the Christian Zionists in particular - who are big Harper supporters and love his extreme pro-Israel stance.  But they were already big Tory supporters to begin with.  I don't think too many non-Jewish voters swung to Harper because of his Israel stance.

I'm actually torn in terms of how much Jewish opposition there is to Israeli policies.  Certainly those who are explicitly anti-Zionist are a small minority, but growing.   I do think a lot of Jews find Israel to be an embarrassment, and the really hardcore Zionists are a minority.  Certainly if these so-called Jewish leaders were representative, US Jews would be big supporters of attacking Iran.   They're not - over 60% are opposed despite all the rhetoric of Iran being the next Nazi Germany.  My gut feeling is that the majority of Diaspora Jews find Israel to be an embrassment - supporting Israel increasingly conflicts with their generally small-"l" liberal views. 

But then I read surveys showing over 80% of American Jews supporting the latest attack on Gaza and realize Peter Kent (a great example of a non-Jewish politician who shows his "tolerance" by being a pro-Israel fanatic) wins the GTA riding of Thornhill in an upset, where the Israel issue certainly must have played a role...and then I feel we haven't come as far as we'd like.  

 

 

Unionist

LP, I think we have to start calling a spade a spade.

When Canadian politicians (or anyone else) identify Canadian Muslims (or Muslim Canadians, whatever) with beheading and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc., what do we call them?

Correct, Islamophobes.

Does it make any difference how some, most, many, a few Muslims actually view these things?

No, it's still Islamophobia.

When Canadian politicians portray Jews as being connected with Israel, dependent on Israel's fate and success, supportive of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories, supportive of its ethnocentric laws and practices - what do we call them?

Why would we not call them antisemites? I've been doing that for some time. As Jews, we must stand up and call these non-Jews antisemites, and explain why we are saying so.

As for the Jews that hold exactly the same positions, we should rally Jews to reject those organizations and "leaders" who sully our name daily by their crimes.

I'm not suggesting that it's easy. I am, however, suggesting that it is essential - because it is true.

just one of the...

Well said.

Stockholm

"

When Canadian politicians (or anyone else) identify Canadian Muslims (or Muslim Canadians, whatever) with beheading and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc., what do we call them?

Correct, Islamophobes."

That all depends. If they are identifying them in that way but with a negative slant - then I guess you could call it "islamophobic".

But what do you call people who actually support Al-Qaeda, beheadings, the 9/11 attacks etc... and actually do think that these were great things for Islam and think that all Muslims all over the world ought to be proud to be associated with such activities? I wouldn't call them anything nice - but i don't think "islamophobic" would be the right word either.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
But what do you call people who actually support Al-Qaeda, beheadings, the 9/11 attacks etc... and actually do think that these were great things for Islam and think that all Muslims all over the world ought to be proud to be associated with such activities?

Enemies and slanderers of Muslims. Anti-Muslims. That's what I call them.

And if someone says "Jews support Zionism and Israel", I call them antisemites.

Get used to it. Slander and defamation are just that.

 

Fidel

Stockholm wrote:
But what do you call people who actually support Al-Qaeda, beheadings, the 9/11 attacks etc... and actually do think that these were great things for Islam and think that all Muslims all over the world ought to be proud to be associated with such activities?

I'd call them excellent PR agents for the military-industrial complex, which is also part of Canada's shadow economy. As Dr Strangelove might have said, they help to create in the minds of an enemy the fear to attack.

Stockholm

How can it be slander if its meant as a complement?

Fidel

Both Al and Qa'eda were supported by US and British governments throughout the decade of the 90's, so I'm not sure where the slander comes in.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
How can it be slander if its meant as a complement?

You mean like, how can "those women are gorgeous and are great in the kitchen and just as great in bed" be misogynist?

Or, how can "those ghetto types have a great sense of rhythm and are just brilliant at B&E" be racist?

Duh, search me, Stock, I'm new here.

 

 

It's Me D

Quote:
How can it be slander if its meant as a complement?

What an "interesting" thought.

ETA: Cross-posted with Unionist's far less vague rebuttle Wink

Stockholm

"Or, how can "those ghetto types have a great sense of rhythm and are just brilliant at B&E" be racist?"

I would call that misguided stereotyping. To me ANTI-semitism has the word "ANTI" as a prefix for a reason. Because it is a 100% negative antagonistic sentiment. If some says "Jews are evil Christ-killers who are responsible for all bad things in the world and deserve to be discriminated against and preferably killed" - THAT is anti-semitism. If on the other hand someone says "Jews make good lawyers and know how to manage their money" - I would call it stereotyping - but I wouldn't call it anti-semitic - because while it is an incorrect stereotype - it isn't being antagonist - just slightly naive and misguided. 

Unionist

Could someone please move this to the AR forum and leave Stockholm behind?

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
How can it be slander if its meant as a complement?

You mean like, how can "those women are gorgeous and are great in the kitchen and just as great in bed" be misogynist?

Or even, how can "those ghetto types have a great sense of rhythm and are just brilliant at B&E" be racist?

Or, how could the CIA-MI6-ISI's database of expendible Islamic militants do such a great job of destabilizing Central Asia and Balkans, and then the crazy Arabs, as treacherous and untrustworthy Arabs will often do without rhyme or reason, turn around and bite the hand that feeds?, be interpreted as anti-semitic?  

just one of the...

Stockholm wrote:

If on the other hand someone says "Jews make good lawyers and know how to manage their money" - 

 

It's antisemitic. Oh, and if a Jewish person says it, still antisemitic.

Pages

Topic locked