Rabble blog by Pierre Beaudet about Mulcair

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Rabble blog by Pierre Beaudet about Mulcair

*

Unionist

Here it is:

[url=http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pierre-beaudet/2012/02/what-english-cana... English Canadians need to understand about Quebec, the NDP and Thomas Mulcair[/url]

I've opened this thread because I couldn't find a "FLAG AS OFFENSIVE" button after this article.

First there's this:

Quote:
It is always amazing to observe the ignorance of the Canadian left when it comes to Quebec politics.

Then this:

Quote:
Mulcair represents a very strange riding which is called Outremont. It is the home of the wealthy francophones, on the West side, who have been tiring of voting for what became to be known as the party of crooks (Liberals). It is also the home of many immigrant communities and the centre of the orthodox Jewish community which numbers more than 20 per cent of the total population of Outremont. It is a unique feature in Montreal's demographic. This community supports Mulcair for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning, or from the anti-racist and anti-discrimination battles that abound in the city.

Of course, only about 10% of Outremont riding identify as Jewish, and very far from 10% are "orthodox", whatever that means. The balance of the paragraph is just plain anti-semitic hatemongering.

It is always amazing to observe the ignorance of Pierre Beaudet when it comes to anything left-wing.

 

josh

Anti-Semitic hatemongering?  Where?

Unionist

Ok, josh. First - his statement that the "orthodox Jewish community", which he depicts as being about six (6) times bigger than it actually is, votes for Mulcair. Second - his cute little innuendo that they do so for some unnamed reason that has nothing to do with "anti-racist and anti-discrimination battles", which must be in his theology the only motives that "orthodox Jews" can legitimately have to vote en bloc.

ETA: Ok, maybe "anti-semitic" is a bit harsh - would you settle for dangerously stupid, lazy (won't look up stats), and racial-religious stereotyping?

 

 

josh

Lazy, perhaps.  I'd need more proof to go beyond that.

Mr.Tea

I'd call it "anti-Semitic". Maybe it was unintentional, but it was. I'm shocked and disappointed that Rabble would publish trash like this.

josh

It's not anti-Semitic.  Intentionally or unintentionally (how can one be unintentionally anti-Semitic?  Isn't that sort of an oxymoron?).  That's a very serious charge.  And it doesn't rise, or fall, to that level.

Unionist

josh wrote:

It's not anti-Semitic.  Intentionally or unintentionally (how can one be unintentionally anti-Semitic?  Isn't that sort of an oxymoron?).  That's a very serious charge.  And it doesn't rise, or fall, to that level.

Calling an entire Jewish community "orthodox", and making up a story that they support Mulcair, and for unstated non-progressive reasons?

How about, "the Jews run Hollywood"? I can find more evidence for that trope.

And by the way, I didn't say it was "unintentionally" anti-semitic. I think this character Beaudet very intentionally decided to show his scorn for an entire community that he knows absolutely nothing about. Being lazy and stupid doesn't prevent one from being bigoted.

josh

I was referring to Mr. Tea with the unintentional reference.

Being mistaken, or careless, when remarking on the voting habits of a group, or a sect of that group, does not make one anti anything.  It just makes one mistaken or careless.

Mr.Tea

People can certainly be unintelntionally anti-Semitic, just as they can be unintentionally racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

An editor at ESPN was recently fired for using the headline "Chink in the Armor" to describe a bad game by Asian-American basketball sensation Jeremy Lin. Whether he deliberately set out to use a racial slur, the EFFECT was a racist pun in the headline. Asian-Americans were offended.

This blogger may not be deliberately intending to be anti-Semitic, but it has that effect anyway. As a Jew, I'm offended. His creepy pouring over of the Jewish vote in Outrement, his absurd (and un-knowable) pronouncement as to what motivated their votes and his presumptions to be able to dictate what OUGHT to motivate their votes is rather anti-Semitic in book. As is his linking to another article, supposedly about Bay Street backing Mulcair which offers a disclaimer that it was "not a comprehensive analysis of donor's to the campaign" and names 5 Bay Street donors, 4 of whom have distinctly Jewish last names, then quickly seguing into a digression about Mulcair's support for Israel. As you're probably aware, there are well-known and long-standing anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling Wall Street / Bay Street as well as ideas about them using their wealth to control the government, dual loyalty towards their countries of citizenship, etc. etc. etc.

Caissa

It's anti-semitic in my opinion. Shades of the Protocols.

Unionist

josh wrote:

I was referring to Mr. Tea with the unintentional reference.

Being mistaken, or careless, when remarking on the voting habits of a group, or a sect of that group, does not make one anti anything.  It just makes one mistaken or careless.

Did you read my piece on orthodox Muslims supporting Rob Ford? Please give me your feeling about that.

 

Unionist

josh wrote:

Lazy, perhaps.  I'd need more proof to go beyond that.

Cool. Let me exemplify for you:

Quote:
Rob Ford represents a very strange city which is called Toronto. [...] It is also the home of many immigrant communities and the centre of the orthodox Mulsim community which numbers more than 12 per cent of the total population of Toronto. It is a unique feature in Toronto's demographic. This community supports Rob Ford for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning, or from the anti-racist and anti-discrimination battles that abound in the city.

NOTE: I got the "12 percent" figure by multiplying the actual Muslim population of Toronto by 2, just as Beaudet did, and by pretending that all of them are "orthodox", just as Beaudet did, and then by concocting the thesis that they voted en bloc for one person based on zero evidence - just as Beaudet did. The rest is unchanged.

Does my rewording sound savoury to you?

 

josh

Mr. Tea, a remark can be taken one or two ways.  But the person who spoke, or wrote, it either did so with a prejudicial intent or did not. 

And once again, a totally valid and accepted sociological or political observation is being turned into something that it is not.  If you went by the standards of some on here, political scientists and sociologists would be out of business.

Mr.Tea

What sociological or political observation was he offering? 

I actually find the article he linked about "Bay Street" backing Mulcair to be even more offensive since it seems pretty obvious that "Bay Street" was actually code for "Jews".

josh

What sociological or political observation was he offering? 

 

The voting habits and pattern of the Orthodox communnity.

 

 

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

It is always amazing to observe the ignorance of Pierre Beaudet when it comes to anything left-wing.

I'm not so into participating in the Rob Ford comparisons or the current discussion going on in this thread.

Besides all of that though--I do respect your opinion.  Are you saying that your opinion about Beaudet is that he's ignorant when it comes to anything left wing?  I mean besides all the stuff about Mulcair and Outremont.

I read his articles about Mulcair a while ago (he hasn't been a fan for a while) and not knowing of Beaudet in any other context I'm finding it hard to appraise what he's saying.

Mr.Tea

josh wrote:

What sociological or political observation was he offering? 

 

The voting habits and pattern of the Orthodox communnity.

 

A) There is no unified "Orthodox community"; it's a pretty diverse group, whether in Montreal, Brooklyn or Jerusalem and you'll find all sorts of political ideologies within it. Outsiders to the community may see similar beards and hats and assume they're all the same, but it's hardly the case.

B) Orthodox Jews, like most voters, are not strictly loyal to any party but are "swing voters" who will vote based on all sorts of issues, the record of the current government, etc. etc. Just like pretty much every other "community" tends to do. I mean how does the "Sikh community" vote?

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Are you saying that your opinion about Beaudet is that he's ignorant when it comes to anything left wing?  I mean besides all the stuff about Mulcair and Outremont.

I have no idea. I've read a couple of his blogs, which seem to be remarkably obtuse (such as his total inability to see any change coming on May 2). But the only reason I wrote that sentence was pure sarcasm, to highlight his opening sentence (a blanket condemnation of the "Canadian left" as being ignorant about Québec). So, I paid him back with a blanket condemnation of my own.

Quote:
I read his articles about Mulcair a while ago (he hasn't been a fan for a while) and not knowing of Beaudet in any other context I'm finding it hard to appraise what he's saying.

I'm dealing with this article on its own face. Lots of people ridiculed his foolishness in the comments following the blog itself. If he wants to get into the discussion here and: (1) explain how 10% gets converted into 20%; (2) explain who the orthodox Jews are; (3) cite his source for how they voted in Outremont since 2007 (Mulcair's first campaign); and (4) explain why he thinks they don't vote for progressive motives, then we can see whether there's anything to judge him by other than the printed word.

 

Unionist

josh wrote:

The voting habits and pattern of the Orthodox communnity.

What the hell is the "Orthodox community"?

We have sizeable Hassidic communities in Montréal, inside and outside Outremont. One of them is ideologically Zionist, the others non- or anti-Zionist (which would come as a shock to our pseudo-scholar Beaudet, I'm quite sure). We also have self-identified orthodox Jews who have nothing whatsoever to do with any Hassidic sect. Then of course we have the majority of Jews, who would not identify as either orthodox or Hassidic. Some are of European ancestry, and more than 25% here are of French-speaking North African ("Sephardic") ancestry.

Beaudet obviously thinks all Jews are "orthodox" (he puts them at 20%!), and that we all support Mulcair. I would be very surprised if even a majority of Jews in my part of the city voted for Mulcair. But that's an anecdotal observation. Beaudet condemns the "orthodox Jewish community" for voting for Mulcair for non-progressive motives. Really.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Beaudet may well have confused statistics pertaining to the Borough of Outremont with statistics pertaining to the federal electoral district of Outremont. That's an error, but it's not evidence of anti-semitism.

There seems to be some evidence, if [url=http://spacingmontreal.ca/2009/12/14/a-hasidic-exodus-from-outremont-and... article[/url] from 2½ years ago is anything to go by - that the Hasidic Jewish population of the Borough of Outremont has increased dramatically since the 2001 census, eleven years ago.  According to the 2001 census, the Borough had [url=http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Ge... Jews, which was about 15% of the population. According to the same census figures, the Jewish population of the Outremont Riding was said to be [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outremont_%28electoral_district%29#Demograp....

But the above-linked article put the number of Hasidic Jews alone at 6,000 in 2009, and said it was "more than 25 percent of Outremont's population" - again, apparently referring to the Borough, not the electoral district. If that statistic was valid in 2009, the proportion of all types of Jews in the population of Outremont borough would then have been somewhat higher than 25 percent.

So I don't know how accurate Beaudet's figure is, but it seems one can no longer assume the census figures from 2001 represent today's reality.

As to the political views of the Jews of Outremont riding, I have no information.

As to the ignorance of the Canadian left about Quebec, Beaudet is right on the money.

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Beaudet may well have confused statistics pertaining to the Borough of Outremont with statistics pertaining to the federal electoral district of Outremont. That's an error, but it's not evidence of anti-semitism.

Who said it was? The anti-semitism is the stereotyping of Jews as "orthodox", as supporting Mulcair, and as having non-progressive motives. What's your problem - you're usually a careful reader?

Quote:
So I don't know how accurate Beaudet's figure is, but it seems one can no longer assume the census figures from 2001 represent today's reality.

You're saying this ignoramus, who doesn't know the difference between Outremont riding and Outremont borough, might be accidentally close to the truth?

Quote:
As to the political views of the Jews of Outremont riding, I have no information.

You are right up there with Beaudet in that respect. The difference is that you had enough integrity not to make shit up about the subject.

Quote:
As to the ignorance of the Canadian left about Quebec, Beaudet is right on the money.

How about the ignorance of Beaudet about Québec? Right on the money?

Actually, why are you even trying to defend such a useless blog?

ETA: Forgot to mention - your facts and figures are mostly from Outremont borough (as is obviously Beaudet's lazy percentage). For those who may not know, the population of Outremont borough (which has a high concentration of Hassidic Jewish sects) is about 23,000. The population of Outremont riding is closer to 100,000. Hope that gives you some notion of the scope of Beaudet's error.

But that numerical error is far from the main point I was making, as must be obvious. That's why his article is stupid. It's not why it's offensive.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

I think M. Beaudet's problem with M. Mulcair is quite clearly identified in the second paragraph of his screed where he wrote:

Quote:
Mulcair was also not only a staunch anti-nationalist, but he even fought hard against Bill 101 (to protect the French language).

I take this to be in reference to M. Mulcair's having had a staff position with Alliance Quebec in the early 1980s, and the parenthetical comment is for the benefit of us ignorant anglos.

Of course there is the the little matter of M. Mulcair being the one to have tabled, in 2009,  the private member's bill (C-455) that appears to be an attempt to codify provisions protecting the absolute right of Francophones working in federally regulated industries in Quebec to communicate in French. But of course this doesn't go quite so far as extending all the provisions of Bill 101 into the federal sphere (it would not, for example, actually prohibit the use of English) and therefore constitutes an existential threat to the French language.

But I guess when your primary purpose is to make sure no shadow ever falls across the adoring light illuminating your shibboleth, any evolution a former opponent may have gone through over a thirty period period must be conveniently ignored if not actively belittled.

I am really left feeling that we really need an equivalent expression to go along with "angryphones" to describe their polar opposites.

[ETA... well actually edited to remove, a surplus "L" in M. Mulcair's name in the first line]

autoworker autoworker's picture

Mr.Tea wrote:

What sociological or political observation was he offering? 

I actually find the article he linked about "Bay Street" backing Mulcair to be even more offensive since it seems pretty obvious that "Bay Street" was actually code for "Jews".

I've never understood any reference to Bay Street as an anti-Semitic code, any more than Wall St. I think you're way off base.

Mr.Tea

He accused "Bay Street" of backing Mulcair. Of the five "Bay Street" examples he gave, four of them had distinctly Jewish names. He then used that as a segue to talk about Mulcair's "support" for Israel. Get it yet?

I assume that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of indivduals have donated to Mulcair`s campaign. The author chooses to specifically highlight 4  Jewish donors out of these hundreds or thousands of people. How about now?

He uses it as a segue to invoke a commo anti-Semitic stereotype of wealthy Jews controlling the government. Make sense?

Finally, the idea that "supporting Israel" is inherently a negative thing. As far as I can tell, Mulcair's "staunch support" for Israel consists of his hesitancy to see Israel (and the six millions Jews who inhabit it) driven into the sea. This is apparently controversial. I'm trying to think of another country in the world in which the mere support of their right to exist is somehow worth discussing. I presume that Mulcari is also against Japan, Mexico and Argentina (to pick 3 countries at random) being destroyed and their populations killed, but that is apparently common sense, whereas with Israel it's contentious.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Bad journalism M. Beaudet.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Mr.Tea wrote:

He accused "Bay Street" of backing Mulcair. Of the five "Bay Street" examples he gave, four of them had distinctly Jewish names. He then used that as a segue to talk about Mulcair's "support" for Israel. Get it yet?

No I don't get it. Did they really have distinctive Jewish names? If so, the author of the column never mentioned that. You are the first person to do so.

That column has already been the subject of a [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/bay-street-backing-thomas-mulc... thread[/url]. Further discussion of it here is thread drift.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
We have sizeable Hassidic communities in Montréal, inside and outside Outremont. One of them is ideologically Zionist, the others non- or anti-Zionist (which would come as a shock to our pseudo-scholar Beaudet, I'm quite sure). We also have self-identified orthodox Jews who have nothing whatsoever to do with any Hassidic sect. Then of course we have the majority of Jews, who would not identify as either orthodox or Hassidic. Some are of European ancestry, and more than 25% here are of French-speaking North African ("Sephardic") ancestry.

The observation from the opening post was convincing enough for me, but this 'Life of Brian' explanation seals it.

Caissa

So why does Rabble publish this crap?

Michelle

Lord knows, I don't support Mulcair.  But I agree with Unionist about the way the blogger pigeonholed and generalized about Jews in Outremont not supporting Mulcair for progressive or anti-racist reasons.  There are all sorts of reasons why people support or don't support a candidate, and no religious or ethnic group is a monolith.

Very sloppy, and that's putting it very lightly.

Caissa, this is a blogger, and blog content is not edited by rabble before the blogger posts it.

Caissa

Thanks, Michelle. I figured they didn't edit bloggers post. My question should have been a better one. Why does Rabble allow this blogger to post to it?

autoworker autoworker's picture

Is it be safe to say that Pierre Beaudet (and, perhaps, Quebec's left) it not comfortable with the prospect of Mulcair leading the NDP/NPD?

josh

Mr.Tea wrote:

Finally, the idea that "supporting Israel" is inherently a negative thing. As far as I can tell, Mulcair's "staunch support" for Israel consists of his hesitancy to see Israel (and the six millions Jews who inhabit it) driven into the sea. This is apparently controversial. I'm trying to think of another country in the world in which the mere support of their right to exist is somehow worth discussing. I presume that Mulcari is also against Japan, Mexico and Argentina (to pick 3 countries at random) being destroyed and their populations killed, but that is apparently common sense, whereas with Israel it's contentious.

I don't want to speak for the author, but it's pretty clear that "support for Israel" was a comparison to the level of his support for Palestine.  As for the "right to exist," the Soviet Union, South Africa and Rhodesia are all states that no longer "exist."

Unionist

autoworker wrote:

Is it be safe to say that Pierre Beaudet (and, perhaps, Quebec's left) it not comfortable with the prospect of Mulcair leading the NDP/NPD?

Yeah, Pierre Beaudet hates Mulcair - isn't that why he wrote the article?

No, Québec's left has never elected or even nominated Pierre Beaudet as its spokesperson. And what makes you think that "Québec's left" would be any more monolithic in its opinion of who should lead the NDP (most that I've spoken to don't really care that much) than "Ontario's left"? or "Canada's left"?

Finally, would it be possible not to turn this thread into a "pro- or anti-Israel" thread, notwithstanding Mr.Tea's well-known political preferences? Too easy a target, and aren't there anough threads like that?

 

Mr.Tea

M. Spector wrote:

No I don't get it. Did they really have distinctive Jewish names? If so, the author of the column never mentioned that. You are the first person to do so.

Schwartz, Munk, Mersky, Mansell and Reitman are all distinctly Jewish names, yes.  These are who he lists as the "Bay Street" backers. "Bay Street" along with "Wall Street" is often code for "Jews". One of these "Bay Streeters" (Joel Reitman) runs a video production company in Eastern Toronto so I'm not sure how he qualifies as "Bay Street" other than the fact that he's Jewish, which this author seems to conflate with working on Bay Street.

And the author may not have "specifically mentioned" that they're Jewish (as if the names didn't give it away), but he uses the notion that "Bay Street" is backing Mulcair and then launches into a digression about Mulcair's "support for Israel", the implication being that his support is because those wealthy Jews are financing him, as if the vast majority of his donations don't come from average people across the country.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The author didn't have to make any "implication" based on what you presume to be the Jewishness of the people he mentioned. If you don't think Gerry Schwartz, Heather Reisman, Anthony Munk, the other directors of Onex Corporation, Barrick Gold, or Scotia Capital can reasonably be called "Bay Street" - regardless of their presumed religious/ethnic affiliations - then you don't know what Bay Street means.

In addition to the support of these Bay Street titans, the article mentions Joel Reitman. He is not called a "Bay Streeter", as you allege, though he may well be for all I know. He is mentioned not because of his presumed Jewishness, but  because, as the author says, he is one of the "prominent supporters of a Canadian Middle East policy that favours Israel", inasmuch as he "co-founded the media and broadcasting company MIJO that launched the 'rebrand Israel' campaign several years ago." I don't give shit if his name is Reitman or Smith, and whether he has an office on Bay Street or the Danforth. He's a promoter of Zionism in Canada and he contributed to Mulcair's campaign. I can't see him giving a red cent to Mulcair if he thought Mulcair was going to pursue an "even-handed" or "balanced" Middle East policy, or whatever weasel phrase Mulcair is using these days.

As for connecting Bay Street to support for Israel, you must be the last person on earth who hasn't figured out that the Canadian business elite, whatever their surnames are, are solid backers of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. Israel is the Mideast proxy of western imperialism in the region, so it's a no-brainer that the Canadian capitalist class - as represented by the metonymic "Bay Street" - is pro-Zionist.

Again I appeal to you to take this nonsense to the other thread, because it has nothing to do with Pierre Beaudet.        

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Again I appeal to you to take this nonsense to the other thread, because it has nothing to do with Pierre Beaudet.        

Agreed - and could we please stop responding to Mr.Tea's derailment of this thread?

Pierre Beaudet claims the "orthodox Jewish community" (by which he apparently means the whole Jewish community) supports Mulcair. Besides anything else that I've mentioned above, what evidence does he have that Jews in Outremont even voted NDP in any significant numbers? In his first three election wins, it was the Bloc voted that collapsed most dramatically - from almost 30% in 2006 to less than 11% in 2007, and today in the single digits.

Perhaps Beaudet can enlighten us as to how many of the "orthodox Jews" switched their vote from Bloc to the NDP?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

As long as Mr. Tea continues to slander Derrick O'Keefe I will continue to respond.

As for the political persuasions of the Jews of Outremont, the only thing that matters is what Thomas Mulcair and his election team believe them to be, based on whatever means they have of divining those persuasions. Whether Mulcair's belief corresponds to reality is another issue; but clearly if he believes that strong support for the Zionist cause is popular in his riding, he will continue to conduct his politics accordingly. If the voters of Outremont don't like his stance on Israel/Palestine, they will find ways to let him know that.

KenS

I found Baudet's article a little too incromprehensible to bother trying to sort it out.

But this is a reference to Derricks article.

Mr.Tea wrote:

He accused "Bay Street" of backing Mulcair. Of the five "Bay Street" examples he gave, four of them had distinctly Jewish names. He then used that as a segue to talk about Mulcair's "support" for Israel. Get it yet?

I cant remember whether Derrick uses the words Zionist supporters of Israel. But its pretty clear that is his intent in linking them all together. And as far as I can tell you are equating 'anti-Zionist' to 'anti-Semetic', which is itself offensive.

KenS

I should have read on to this pretty gem:

Mr.Tea wrote:

Finally, the idea that "supporting Israel" is inherently a negative thing. As far as I can tell, Mulcair's "staunch support" for Israel consists of his hesitancy to see Israel (and the six millions Jews who inhabit it) driven into the sea. This is apparently controversial. I'm trying to think of another country in the world in which the mere support of their right to exist is somehow worth discussing. I presume that Mulcari is also against Japan, Mexico and Argentina (to pick 3 countries at random) being destroyed and their populations killed, but that is apparently common sense, whereas with Israel it's contentious.

Appalingly reductionist, and not OK around here- you have the MSM for this shit. But I guess it was not inadvertent that you equated anti-Zionist with anti-Semitic.

Mr.Tea

Many of the Hasidic Jews he talks about in Outrement are, themselves, staunchly anti-Zionist

Unionist

dp

Unionist

Spector, this thread is not about Mulcair's stand on Israel. There are several threads on that topic.

Mulcair's championing of Israel long precedes his running anywhere near Outremont. But what you are obviously unaware of is the fact that Israel has never in my memory appeared in his election publicity.

He won in 2007 by highlighting three big themes:

  • withdrawal from Afghanistan (which was never the Bloc policy, and which his own newfound party was still tepid about);
  • strong environmental program;
  • and local concerns - emphasis on diversity and integrating immigratint communities, poverty, etc.

That, along with his strong personal reputation and recognition, is how he plundered the Bloc vote long before the Orange Wave was even a trickle.

No Israel. No Jews.

Why are you defending this ignoramus Beaudet and his bigoted thesis and language?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

Spector, this thread is not about Mulcair's stand on Israel. There are several threads on that topic.

That's possibly the most disingenuous thing you've ever posted, which is saying a lot.

Beaudet's blog post was about Mulcair's politics, including his position on Israel. Remember? the part of the blog post that you think is bigoted?

You act as if Mulcair's right-wing politics are completely unknown to the electors of Outremont, who only voted for him because he wanted the Afghan war to end and had a number of local  and environmental concerns. You may have forgotten his record when you voted for him in 2007, but Beaudet says the rest of the voters of Quebec didn't forget. Mulcair was "known for his trade-union bashing and his love of free trade agreements, not to mention his "affair" with Israel...he even fought hard against Bill 101". Beaudet says the people of Outremont supported Mulcair because of his politics, not despite them. You may disagree with Beaudet, but calling him a bigot is bullshit.

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Beaudet's blog post was about Mulcair's politics, including his position on Israel. Remember? the part of the blog post that you think is bigoted?

Whoa, big mistake there Spector!

The part I quoted that was bigoted was about Jews - it was not about Israel - I know you know the difference - it didn't even mention Israel. So let me refresh your memory:

Pierre Beaudet wrote:

Mulcair had very little to do with the orange wave of last May. Mulcair represents a very strange riding which is called Outremont. It is the home of the wealthy francophones, on the West side, who have been tiring of voting for what became to be known as the party of crooks (Liberals). It is also the home of many immigrant communities and the centre of the orthodox Jewish community which numbers more than 20 per cent of the total population of Outremont. It is a unique feature in Montreal's demographic. This community supports Mulcair for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning, or from the anti-racist and anti-discrimination battles that abound in the city.

Where did you see Israel in connection with the Jews of Outremont riding? Nowhere, except - maybe - through scurrilous innuendo. Funny you should have made that association without seeing it there. That's how innuendo is supposed to work.

Quote:
You act as if Mulcair's right-wing politics are completely unknown to the electors of Outremont, who only voted for him because he wanted the Afghan war to end and had a number of local  and environmental concerns. You may have forgotten his record when you voted for him in 2007, but Beaudet says the rest of the voters of Quebec didn't forget. Mulcair was "known for his trade-union bashing and his love of free trade agreements, not to mention his "affair" with Israel...he even fought hard against Bill 101". Beaudet says the people of Outremont supported Mulcair because of his politics, not despite them. You may disagree with Beaudet, but calling him a bigot is bullshit.

Beaudet is a delusional fraud. Mulcair is not known by anyone, or accused by anyone in Québec, of bashing unions or being anti-French. You think Beaudet is saying that the Bloc voters of Outremont massively switched to Mulcair because of his anti-French politics? Do you have any clue how many francophone voters there are in Outremont?

Or was Beaudet just talking about the Jews being anti-French and anti-union? Which is it?

Word of advice: Do not associate yourself with this character Beaudet. Otherwise, you may inadvertently make his slanderous statement come true, about the Canadian left being totally ignorant about Québec.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I don't think it would be a bigoted statement to say that the voters of Calgary Southwest are 20% evangelical Christians and support Stephen Harper "for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning". Not even if someone could prove that the proportion of evangelical Christians was actually less than that.

Nor do I agree with you that Beaudet is a bigot for saying that the voters of Outremont are 20% Orthodox Jewish and support Thomas Mulcair "for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning".

You hyperbolic ranting in this case is badly misplaced. 

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

I don't think it would be a bigoted statement to say that the voters of Calgary Southwest are 20% evangelical Christians and support Stephen Harper "for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning". Not even if someone could prove that the proportion of evangelical Christians was actually less than that.

Using your very telling analogy - wouldn't it be strange if it turned out that the "evangelical" portion were only 6%, but someone called all Christians "evangelical"? And that the 20% was really only 10%, so even the 6% was really only 3%??

And what if it turned out that the group in question didn't even support Harper after all?

Then the analogy with Outremont Jews would be near-perfect - bigotry and all.

Quote:
Nor do I agree with you that Beaudet is a bigot for saying that the voters of Outremont are 20% Orthodox Jewish and support Thomas Mulcair "for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning".

I guess I'm not looking for your agreement on that. I know this riding. You and Beaudet do not. Why not assimilate some of the information I'm providing and have a second look, before you start in on statements like this:

Quote:
You hyperbolic ranting in this case is badly misplaced.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

M. Spector wrote:

I don't think it would be a bigoted statement to say that the voters of Calgary Southwest are 20% evangelical Christians and support Stephen Harper "for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning". Not even if someone could prove that the proportion of evangelical Christians was actually less than that.

Nor do I agree with you that Beaudet is a bigot for saying that the voters of Outremont are 20% Orthodox Jewish and support Thomas Mulcair "for reasons that are far off from any progressive meaning".

You hyperbolic ranting in this case is badly misplaced. 

It wouldn't be bigoted, it would just be wrong.

A better case would be to explain the support for Harper would be that funny taste in the water that you find in households who draw on the Glenmore (as opposed to the Bearspaw) reservoir.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

bagkitty wrote:

It wouldn't be bigoted, it would just be wrong.

I'm glad you agree with me.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Actually, no, I don't agree with you. You are clearly missing the fact that "Evangelicals" do not identify as an ethnic group which makes them quite different from the Jewish community, which frequently does self-identify as an ethnic group (or groups). Try this on for size, no-one identifies as a "secular Evangelical" -- yet one can employ the terminology "secular Jew" and people will understand what you are on about.

I wonder when they are going to roll-out that sarcasm font that post #47 is so clearly calling for?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The comparison was between Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians - both are religious, not ethnic categories.

Pages