Cheri di Novo self-destructs

Terrific post, gita. Thank you very much.

gita wrote:

it is very revealing that the people she kept deleting, defriending and then accusing of sexism and harassment, were precisely the people she keeps invoking to justify her position: gays and lesbians of muslim background, women of colour, and myself, an iranian woman whose work against islamic fundamentalism started way before CDN found the superficial language to speak of it.  there is no glee in that revelation.  only profound sadness and disappointment....

many people in the FB group are quite clear that this debate needs to be recentred on ONDP and federal NDP.  perhaps it is time that we collectively acknowledge our sadness for CDN, note the lessons we've learned, and move on to discussing how to pressure ONDP to take a clear public stance and how to pressure federal NDP to withdraw from CPCCA?  i personally look forward to that.

Stockholm wrote:

Once again, this shows why people in provincial politics should know better than to say anything about the Middle East. Its a lose, lose, lose proposition and the more you say about the Middle East the deeper a hole you dig for yourself.

Are you suggesting that Peter Shurman is going to face a backlash from his constituents?

Does anyone know what she meant by "Saudi/Iran" apartheid?

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Does anyone know what she meant by "Saudi/Iran" apartheid?

I can guess. But when people are ranting and going into pretzel logic, why bother?

Yep Cheri de Nova, is evil personified, and all women are to blame for all the world's ills,....mens, they are perfect to behold, in deed and public good will.

Unionist wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Should we ask whether Cheri DiNovo, who is nevertheless wrong on this question, is taking a disproportionate amount of stick for her pro-Israel views as a queer woman and former street kid?

I didn't realize that she is a queer woman

I'm familiar with some of her life story, but before today I was unaware that she self-identifies as queer. I'm curious if this was the first time she's come-out and stated this publicly. Did anyone else know this?

And I have to agree with Michelle's comments. When this story first began I followed the drama on Babble and FB with a mixture of disappointment, frustration, and amusement. Now I mainly feel pity.

My sympathy and solidarity with Cheri.  Regardess of what people may think of her positon on this issue, she has the balls and the creds to put it out there/   She has walked the talk or paid her dues, call it what you will and right now is not playing this as some smooth talking head politican, She took a stand in the midst of some heavy duty issues and has publicly discuused, with some emotion, her thinking and her feelings on the issue and around  the reaction to her stand.  I don't have a problem with that. Why do you = think she shoudl suck it in,refuse to comment isue a prepared statement and stick to the talking points of some media consultant?Personally, I would rather see this dealt with en famille.

Tommy, you may have bigger fish to fry, but I don't know of any bigger fish at the moment than torture.

I think you missunderstand me.   Yes, I think DiNovo was wrong for all the reasons already mentioned here.   But my point is, I can't get all fired up against her when people who took an active roll in the Arar affair are skating from their responsibilities.  It'd Cotler, a man of international reputation and long history of fighting for human rights giving his blessing on C 36, that lead a good ways down that path.   And, it's members of the RCMP and CSIS who should be garnering much more vitriol than Cheri DiNovo.  

And, there's a lot of good people on Parliament Hill that did nothing when the time came to do something, that more richly deserve to be impuned than Cheri DiNovo.

Which, just because there are worse people than DiNovo on this score, doesn't mean she should get a free pass or anything.   I just think because it's current, and she's accessable to a greater degree, she's catching it out of proportion.

Unionist wrote:

Sounds like Bev Desjarlais to me. Michelle, did you think that comparison was apt? Or was Bev just plain bad through and through, not just on equal marriage?

Peterjcassidy, when Cheri's friends tried to deal with it "en famille", she deleted their posts. You apparently think her "courage" in stating her position outweighs the content of her position. That is astounding. You must appreciate Jason Kenney and John Baird too. Nothing scripted and mealy-mouthed about them.

Or do you maybe support what Cheri said in the legislature?

I have a lot of sympathy for what Cheri said in the legislature, including her reference ot how the death of Julius D. affected her. I ,ay or may nte agree with all the words, but I think she did take a postion in accord with her values after much thought, a position that I see in acord with NDP and democratis socialist/ social democratic valuse. I have a lot of symathy for what she is saying in the  semi-public cyber sphere  starting with the fact sheis   sharing her thoughts and feelings  in a manner some see as innapropriate.   Persoannly I like to see my legislatorrs cry and curse and rant and argue and be human.

To be honest, I am not sure.  That's the leaders call, and as a member-- for now-- I have to wait and see what reasoning from that quarter is applied on the issue one way or the other.  

You might be asking the wrong guy.   If it was up to me, the ONDP and Federal NDP caucus' would be pretty small indeed if they were kicked out every time they ran afoul of my personal ethics.

Not going to repeat myself if you simply refuse to read FM.

This'll probably hit the MSM tomorrow - she needs to apologize.

I'm also a bit puzzled by her assertion that she's queer; maybe she misspoke.  She's married to her 2nd husband and has 2 kids.

I think that remind was provoked in the first place by the play I did on Buffy Sainte-Marie's lyrics to "The Universal Soldier." I probably should have written "S/he's the universal soldier and s/he really is to blame ..." I didn't think of that at the time, although if you know the song, you know that shouldn't be necessary (try finishing that line, and you'll see). It's a song about the responsibility of every individual to have a conscience, to nurture it, and to act on the basis of it.

I don't find it that hard to say, eg, that if people are dying in Afghanistan, in some significant sense it is my fault. That's what Buffy was singing about and warning about. If Cheri DiNovo or anyone else does not think that s/he will be responsible for those who will die if Iran is attacked, then maybe it's worth singing the song again, eh? I very much doubt there are any Iranian women asking to be bombed.

again skdadl you think way too highly of your own words and person.

Sineed wrote:

This'll probably hit the MSM tomorrow - she needs to apologize.

Thank you for putting it simply and bluntly. Some people here appear not to understand that point.

Quote:

I'm also a bit puzzled by her assertion that she's queer; maybe she misspoke.  She's married to her 2nd husband and has 2 kids.

I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would give a damn about Cheri DiNovo's sexual predilections, when what is under discussion is her prostrating herself at the feet of some two-bit Conservative enemy of freedom and justice. I personally don't care whom she likes to copulate with or how, and find her exhibitionism rather astounding.

Unionist wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

I have a lot of sympathy for what Cheri said in the legislature, including her reference ot how the death of Julius D. affected her.

Like her, you apparently have trouble distinguishing between Jews and Israel. Because some Jew shared a dying regret with her, she decided Israel is a pretty cool place, and anyone who tells the truth about it should be silenced by an all-party vote. I should be forthright, honest, blunt (you appear to appreciate those qualities, or is it only in those you agree with) - your support for her on this issue disgusts me, as a Canadian, as a progressive person, and as a Jew.

Sorry, you feel that wa,but for my own reasons I can feel for Cheri. Does it help of I say I have been thinking a lot lately about issues like those explored in the song: Easy to be hard= especially those who believe in social justice?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjOvjPJ3pXM&feature=related

It's an interesting thought, takeitslowly, but I'm thinking you don't broaden your support by attacking your base.

First-time commenter here, motivated by what I witnessed on Twitter last night.

I'll preface this by stating that I believe diNovo is wrong to condemn Apartheid Week. BUT I think some of the comments she made on FB yesterday aren't wrong - specifically her points on women's activism and the problem w/ a male-dominated debate. We all know there are many Palestinian women activists, Iranian women activists, etc. - but Cheri is right to say that in Canada they are rarely heard outside of (small) progressive circles. Now, the fact that Cheri herself could spend some more time listening to women of colour as mention by gita above - absolutely. But diNovo is already half right when it comes to women. Which is frankly more right than most other people.

My reading of diNovo's FB comments, and Andrew's response, was different from many posters here. It seems to me like it was a frustrated response to violent threats against her family. And for someone to be in a state of fear, anger, & defiance, who is already upset with white men dominating the debate, who continues to get nasty phone calls (from men) threatening her family, to be told by a guy to "back away from the computer," I mean, come on! It's easy to see how that can be interpreted as patronizing, even if Andrew didn't mean it that way. So the "idiot" comment, jeez, let that go. He picked the wrong time to boss her around on her own FB wall. And frankly, Andrew's claim that Cheri "told me to call her office to set up a fight" - that's not what I read. She was referring to the dudes making threats  - I don't think that had anything at all to do with him. But he was sure eager to jump on it and make it about him and declare she was having a "meltdown."

Cheri is obviously wrong not to accept that what is going on in Israel is apartheid. But that, to me, isn't a deal-breaker for a provincial MPP. I am so frustrated today with people eager to jump on her and tear her down. Dippers have a habit of tearing each other apart over who is more "true to the cause." Cheri might come around eventually on Israeli Apartheid, but she sure as hell won't do it if fellow "progressives" keep ripping in to her for one frustrated rant that followed a week of harassment and threats to her family. The way to go is to keep engaging her, not tearing her apart. And on a hell of a lot of other issues, she's right.

The opinions of one Ontario MPP are not going to make a difference in the Middle East, and maybe this is naive but I don't think they'll make that much difference to the future of our party. But if we lose her seat because we made a mountain out of a molehill and bring down one of our own, that will sure make a difference to Ontario.

Sineed wrote:

unionist wrote:

I'm a bit puzzled why anyone would give a damn about Cheri DiNovo's sexual predilections, when what is under discussion is her prostrating herself at the feet of some two-bit Conservative enemy of freedom and justice. I personally don't care whom she likes to copulate with or how, and find her exhibitionism rather astounding.

My point - which, I concede, I didn't explicitly make - is if she said something so basic about her identity that is (far as I know) manifestly untrue, what else did she say that really isn't an expression of anything other than astoundingly bad judgement?

It is not for us to judge whether she is "queer enough" to fit other people's criteria.

The Israel-Palestine conflict can be seen as a global metaphor for the wars and civil unrests of our times:

A history of peoples oppressed and persecuted, to varying degrees broken and traumatized, pitted against each other like bear and dog, a match set by overlording masters who will mostly profit from the outcome whichever way it goes.

It so happens to be at the epicenter of a geopolitical timebomb that has been ticking for over a hundred years, long before Israel was born and Palestinians occupied. It started out about oil and industrial regional dominance, but has since transpired into a fundamentalist feud of world views, aka Plutocracy/Capitalism/Corporatism vs. Monarchy/Sheikdom/Islam, that makes the Cold War seem like nothing but a passing bout of indigestion.

A majority of Israelis consistently respond to polls in favour of a two state solution. Nearly half of the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank also respond in favour. Nonetheless there are the hard memories, decades upon decades fraught with loved ones killed, homes and orchards razed, soldiers shooting, tanks and jets bombing, skuds, rapes, ambushes, suicide bombings, line-ups and checkpoints, murders and massacres...plus a temperament (or hard-headedness) that is legacy to mistreatment and abuse and having to fight for survival.

And then there is the apartheid wall. What is that, really, but an act of desperation so obvious that it should evoke our sympathy, or pity, more so than wrath?

We hate and point and throw more blame on the fire. My point being, it's more than complicated, should one take the time to really think about it. Or to research the subject...thoroughly.

Now back to Cheri DiNovo:

It is daring for anyone to profer their opinion on the matter, especially someone in the public service, in some way that is not obvious, or already done, to death. Now more than ever we need good people to speak their mind. I'm not sure what she said in Parliament, but I am fairly certain that Cheri DiNovo is not a Zionist and she is fully aware of the plight and circumstances of the occupied Palestinians.

Before the invisible Gerard Kennedy hobbled into this riding, the woman who served Parkdale for so many years--the one who wore the NDP stripes so favoured by many a RABBLE Champagne Socialist--would not likely strike anyone as being a bigot or a racist. I doubt very much that she harbours any surreptitious resentment toward the Arab world. She is likely one of the more informed and progressive municipal politicians in the city.

These times are desperate, and our leaders let us down daily by avoiding discussion about those things that truly matter. Meanwhile, the WAR WAYS aren't working. The US vs. THEM doesn't work. The BLAME GAME doesn't work. But it does suit some. There are those, we know, who stand to gain and even profit by it. And we're smart enough to know who they are. Aren't we?

Do you people really have nothing better to do than to devour one of your own?

And so the metaphor trickles down...

double post

Gabriel Sinduda wrote:

I'm not sure what she said in Parliament, but I am fairly certain that Cheri DiNovo is not a Zionist and she is fully aware of the plight and circumstances of the occupied Palestinians.

1. She's not in "Parliament". 2. Why don't you just read what she said before posting all these paragraphs? 3. What if she [b]is[/b] a Zionist? That's her business. She is being condemned here not for having the "wrong opinion" on Israeli apartheid, but supporting an all-party move to condemn activists right when they were organizing IAW. It would be like supporting an all-party motion to condemn all those who favour Québec sovereignty.

Did you actually read [i]anything[/i] before sitting down to lecture us?

Quote:

Do you people really have nothing better to do than to devour one of your own?

She's not one of "my own", and who the hell are "you people"? What do you mean by that? United Church ministers?

Frustrated Mess wrote:

remind wrote:

Not going to repeat myself if you simply refuse to read FM.

Small mercies.

So let's see, criticizing Israeli apartheid is anti-semitic, and criticizing an NDPer who happens to be a woman for reinforcing the stupidity of the first statement is sexist. I do need to to keep up with the various inane devices useful for both derailing and chilling debate.

 

 

The revelation in these threads, and elsewhere, is that a blanket condemnation of pro-Palestinian activists is not considered "as bad" as condemning anti-racist or pro-LGBTQ or pro-feminist or pro-choice or pro-union activists.

It shows what grave danger is posed by the Harper-Kenney onslaught against KAIROS, UNRWA, Rights and Democracy, Durban II, Palestinian rights in U.N. forums, and any hint of criticism of Israel in Canadian political life.

Harper is a brilliant political survivor, and he understands the importance of vacillation in the midst of those who should be the natural allies of the Palestinian people.

We have a difficult job to do, and it is made far more difficult by the likes of DiNovo and her apologists.