Congrats for what? Wasn't it this that led to Winnifred being banned for a week? So in fact her question was fair, based on the truth and she gets banned? This should trouble many people whether you like her or not she was clearly mistreated.
The United Church Of Canada debates the Israeli Boycott
Mon, 2009-08-17 18:29
#102
Mon, 2009-08-17 19:50
#103
Frustrated Mess
Why don't you denounce Israeli racism, which was the goal of the UCC resolutions, while you're here?
Mon, 2009-08-17 20:14
#104
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Congrats for what? Wasn't it this that led to Winnifred being banned for a week? So in fact her question was fair, based on the truth and she gets banned? This should trouble many people whether you like her or not she was clearly mistreated.
If this is one of the pamphlets that Winnifred was referring to, perhaps. But that was never made clear - it seemed he or she was not actually aware of the content of the supposedly offensive pamphlets.
So the rumour Winnifred mongered might have had some basis in fact? Doesn't quite excuse the behaviour, IMO.
And if indeed he/she was "mistreated", it by no means makes up for all that Winnifred has gotten away with around here. Winnifred has been treated with kid gloves up until now. I hope this is an indication that such bullshit will no longer be tolerated.
Mon, 2009-08-17 21:21
#105
LTJ i would agree with you if Winnifred was punished for past actions. but it was based on comments from this thread. Now was that the publication in question. I do not know. but i do know this. IJV has issued a statement about a publication that they had at their table that according to the IJV statement was disturbing to say the least.
any organization should should know better than to put something at their own table without proofing it first.
but does calling into question deserve a banning? not sure. i will say that in this case hindsight unfort is 20/20
Mon, 2009-08-17 21:31
#106
Frustrated Mess
"any organization should should know better than to put something at their own table without proofing it first"
Yes, because something on the table of the IJV certainly is far graver than any crimes and obscenities committed by Israel against Palestinians and so that's really where the entire focus of the thread and the discussion ought to be. Damn those IJVers, is there a hell hot enough for 'em?
Tue, 2009-08-18 00:11
#107
Conflating two issues is an easy cop out. I will not denounce Israeli racism because that in itself would be racist. I will condemn individual acts or racist policies if I believe them to be racist.
As for Winnifred, she is clearly disliked here for her views. I get it. However in this specific case miles is right. She obviously was referring to the pamphlets being discussed in the National Post and the posts make that pretty clear. Winnifred was targeted for her past posts and the mods should acknowledge their mistake.
Tue, 2009-08-18 00:26
#108
Congrats for what? Wasn't it this that led to Winnifred being banned for a week?
No - it was her accusation that IJV pushes Holocaust denial, based on a third-party article being distributed. Any idiot knows what IJV stands for. If Winnifred wants to attack IJV for opposing Israeli crimes, fair game - go ahead. She used an incident to accuse them of being Holocaust deniers - rather than simply seeking clarification (which I like to think you or anyone would have done). Ugly actions like that have no place here. It's hard for Jews to criticize Israel without being slandered and defamed from all sides. We don't need to face that on a progressive site like babble.
ETA: Just so there is no confusion, Winnifred was suspended for this filthy attack and nothing else:
Questioning the Holocaust has now become part of the IJV agenda? Why am I not surprised?
On reflection, she ought to be simply banned.
Tue, 2009-08-18 00:34
#109
Unionist, I didnt like the way Winnifred articulated her concern. However it read more to me like sarcasm as opposed to anything else. And it was based on a fact. Perhaps she doesnt like IJV and this was a sarcastic hit? Unecessarily caustic? Yes, Banishment.?..no...if so there are many here that would face the same punishment. Not everyone agrees with you and some (unlike you?) can be downright unpleasant in their disagreement.
Tue, 2009-08-18 01:29
#110
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
The fact of the matter is that Winnifred's only interest lies in defending and enabling Israel's ability to oppress, humiliate and perhaps engage in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
WTF is said poster doing here?
Tue, 2009-08-18 02:23
#111
Frustrated Mess
" I will not denounce Israeli racism because that in itself would be racist."
How very convenient, anti-racism is racism. Roll over George Orwell. Was it racist to denounce South African racism?
"I will condemn individual acts or racist policies if I believe them to be racist."
Yes, I'm sure. Can you give an example where you have?
Tue, 2009-08-18 08:07
#112
Maysie
Long thread.
A reminder that if anyone has an issue with a specific post or poster to pm or email the mods. Thank you.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3