Cheri DiNovo should apologize

WRT  skdadl's question on the House of Saud at the very end of the closed thread, in the movie "Looking For Bin Laden" (or some such title) there's at least one vignette that shows the absolute control the Sauds exercise over that country - an American filmmaker is in a Saudi school, and trying to ask questions to two young students - while their teacher and some gov't flunkies are in the room. It's clear the answers have been rehearsed ahead of time, and when the filmmaker goes 'off script', they refuse to answer any further questions. There's also commentary on how the House of Saud is kept in power with American military firepower but that's for another thread.

Developers balk at affordable-unit idea

Quote:

NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park) plans to reintroduce a private member's bill in May on inclusionary zoning that died when Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the Legislature. Her bill would change the provincial Planning Act to permit municipalities to require developers to set aside a certain percentage of new housing units for affordable housing.

"We have to step in and come up with some novel ideas," said DiNovo. "We have to look at the greater good." She argued such a policy would not cost any tax dollars, and that developers would be able to sell larger units, aimed at families, that are typically harder to sell.

DiNovo added it would be no different than the funding developers currently give to communities, called Section 37 money, for common-good projects such as playgrounds or parks. The amounts contributed by developers are generally dependent on the negotiating skills of individual councillors.

http://www.thestar.com/yourcitymycity/article/777568--developers-balk-at...

Thanks Michael.

Unionist is le...wrote: "attempting to use the term apartheid and conference/debate simultaneously is a preemptive defilement of everything I take reasonable debate to stand for."

See, this was the problem with the anti-South African Apartheid movement. It should never have used words like "apartheid" and "institutionalized racism" as they shut down reasonable debate with the government of South Africa and its supporters.  Remember, etiquette trumps core ethical positions every time. If that means that the grotesque suffering of an oppressed population is silenced, minimized, or otherwise whitewashed, so be it: their feelings aren't terribly important in the grand scheme of things. It's the feelings and precious self-image of the powerful that must be sheltered at all costs.

Meanwhile, this is how Israel's powerbrokers view reasonable debate:

"The campaign against Israeli dissidents has taken the form of venomous denunciations of activists and jurists, including Justice Goldstone. It includes a bill before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, which will make it possible to imprison the leaders of Israeli human rights groups if they fail to comply with crippling new registration conditions. Human rights activists from outside Israel who work in the Palestinian territories are being rounded up and deported. The government is refusing to issue work visas to employees of 150 NGOs operating in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders). The new tourist visas effectively bar these employees from Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. Professor Naomi Chazan, the Israeli head of the NIF, which has donors in the United States, is being publicly vilified by ultranationalist groups such as Im Tirzu.  Foreign donors to the NIF, as well as other human rights groups, are being pressured by Israeli officials to halt contributions. Billboards have sprouted up around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with a grotesque caricature of Chazan, who has been branded by groups such as Im Tirzu as an agent for Hamas and Iran, with a horn growing from her forehead. "Naomi-Goldstone-Chazan" the caption on the billboard reads. Im Tirzu, the front organization behind many of the attacks, includes among its financial backers the John Hagee Ministries and the New York Central Fund, which also support extremist settler organizations...

"The Knesset bill, if passed, will force human rights groups to register as political bodies and turn over identification numbers and addresses of all members to the government. These groups will lose their tax-exempt status. Most governmental organizations, such as the European Union, which is a large donor to Israeli human rights organizations, cannot legally pay taxes to another government, and the new law will effectively end European Union and other outside funding. The groups will be mandated to provide the government with the records of all foreign donations and account for how these donations were spent. Any public statement, event or speech, even if it lasts half a minute, by these groups must include a declaration that they are being supported and funded by a foreign power. Those who fail to follow these guidelines, including local volunteers, can face a year in jail."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/israel_crackdown_puts_liberal_jews_o...

I am thinking we should change it from Israel Aparthied Week to 'Israel not being very nice' week.
Unless of course, Canadian Israeli supporters feel that is too strong, in which case we could change it to 'Israel not being as nice as they could' week

Unionist, just when I think you've exhausted your overweening gall, you go and outdo yourself.

Am I the only one who finds Unionist to be just a little ill positioned to extort an apology from DiNovo, indeed given the way he shows contempt for fellow rabblers, from anyone?? This from the person who has been the most antagonizing and abusive on this board towards DiNovo, who has smeared her with complete impunity? Who has attempted to out her [identity] in this forum?

It is very telling that in his enumeration of the reasons DiNovo ought to prostrate herself at the altar of rabid Leftists, Unionist completely elides the one thing for which DiNovo may in fact owe an apology: inappropriately insulting someone (who incidentally thinks its perfectly appropriate to go to her Wall and taunt and provoke her (remind me next time I'm at your house to shit all over it and demand impunity). Now I don't know how we are to conceive of questions of etiquette and respect on FB, of issues of propriety, of moderating comments, is one's wall like one's personal journal and thoughts or is there the same expectation of balanced and fair debate as there is at a conference or an all candidates meeting. I think there is a rich discussion to be had around these issues. Which incidentally is one of my issues against the use of the word apartheid in IAW. If you want to use it in a context of one sided propaganda, I say go for it, in fact would encourage it. But attempting to use the term apartheid and conference/debate simultaneously is a preemptive defilement of everything I take reasonable debate to stand for.

But by far the best part of Unionist insolent drivel is "I can't imagine which progressive person of good faith would not forgive her." Awe, such a soft tone from Unionist. Do you think she'll be swayed by you? This again, from the one person least qualified to talk about good faith. Of course, this in a forum where such good faith is generally in very short supply when it comes to anyone disagreeing with the fundamentalist politics around here.

However, I refuse to believe that there is near unanimity here. I am shocked by how few rabblers have stood up against the bullying, the loose tongues, the personal attacks, the intellectual dishonesty, the deliberate misconstruing of DiNovo's position. 

To the moderators: Yes I know, I'm banned. Whatever! I'd be happy to post your "defence" of banning me on my blog piece, since you insinuate that I mischievously disallowed it in the comments section.  I'd be happy to even create a new blog entry for it. Oh yeah, when you're making friends with Kinsella you might want to question what kind of gong show you're running here. I will be posting a defence of DiNovo in the near future for anyone who wishes to think fairly and respectfully around the issue. But you know I'll pop up here once in while. It is in my nature.

[url=http://actsofcitizenship.blogspot.com/]spurs[/url]

Thread drift/ Is this person welcome to stay or banned again other this new incarnation/ end thread drift

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:

But by far the best part of Unionist insolent drivel is

The best part?  He's been around here for awhile...you have no idea.

remind wrote:

That some are questioning CDN's self proclaimed "queerness" here is  absolutely hyprocritical.

That several men were telling her what to do on her own FB wall, was so full of fucking male privilege as to be again hyprocritical. Those actions are every bit as wrong as CDN denying freedom of speech against activists for Palestine.

What even gives them the right to attack her on her FB wall over this?

 

They should have started a FB account about it as opposed to infiltrating HER space, and attacking HER on HER space.

 

If any person went to my FB wall, and started attacking me, I sure as fuck would be defriending them too. It is NOT their space it is MY SPACE.

 

The lack of respect and personal privilege that was  exhibited  by those that did so, is a very negative blight on the face of left , and supposedly progressive, politics in Canada.

 

Their actions are no better the CDN, and perhaps worse.

I guess you missed the fact that WOMEN posted on her wall too. Did you also miss the fact that is a representative for the NDP?

Remind, I am a woman and a feminist and frankly, I do not think it is winning us over allies to call everyone who posted on her wall male privileged. That is bullshit. If your brand of feminism is defending her simply because she is a woman I want no part of it.

Is this a NDP right or wrong thing or do you truly believe that the well thought out comments on her FB, by her "friends", was "so full of male privilege as to be hypocritical"?

In order to believe the first you would have to have read a different thread on her FB than was posted here.

She is an elected representative. She has a duty to represent those who voted her in and she doesn't get a pass because she is a woman. She screwed the left over - she now reaps what she sowed.

Ooh. We are havin' teh board warz.

synthome, aka Unionist is le sinthome, aka Derrida: There are a number of people around here who have read Derrida, y'know, were reading him thirty-plus years ago, and a few of us actually knew him. I have bad news for you: as Lloyd Bentsen might have said, you're no Jacques Derrida. Derrida was in person a very gentle man, very generous, firm in his ... well, his vision, perhaps, rather than his views ... but even while holding to that vision, he was not -- oh, what's the word I'm looking for? -- bumptious? That's it. He was definitely not bumptious.

There are people around here who I think might have earned the right to sign themselves "Derrida" -- Catchfire comes to mind, except Catchfire would never do that because he is not presumptuous, and gosh knows, he ain't bumptious neither.

I didn't write to DiNovo's wall that night because I am so seldom at FB, but if I had seen that reference turning Kazemi/Arar into a zero-sum game, slagging feminists and rationalizing the torture of Muslim men, if I had seen that coming through on my feed, I certainly would have protested it. I protest it now, and I will go on protesting it unless and until it is withdrawn. I doubt that Jacques Derrida would have any problem with that. Blessings be upon him.

SJ

because, it is HER SPACE, whereas her constituency office is not, and then there is also the factor,  elected official do just that SJ, except it is not  publically done in front of millions.

no one said a word about sacred ground, so  please stop with the overblown rhetoric when responding to me, as there is already enough of that floating around here.

stalking  and bullying whether here or on FB, is violence against a person. No matter if one disagrees with the person one is doing it to or not, does not entitle one to carry on, when it has been shown to be unwelcome, which is also why the dude from spurs, was not allowed back here under other monikers.

That people still do, after it has been indicated unacceptable behaviour, is a sign of their own perceived privilege.

If you told me here to back away from the computer, I would telling you to FRO, and you, perhaps, would be getting a comment from a moderator about what makes you think you have a right to tell me to back away.

I saw Derrida eat cheese in person once. My friend said he reminded her of her cat.

Good grief "intellectual royalty" indeed..and then putting Levi Strauss into that category is well....pukeable.

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:

skdadl: I harbour no illusions, there will never be another Derrida, and as my profile suggests I use the name only to mourn and mark his death and to keep his name alive. I agree that Derrida was a very gentle and generous man, especially in person, but there was a serious streak of Nietzschean intemperance and reading otherwise in Derrida's work. For instance, in Gammatology, as a very young man and a "foreigner" he audaciously takes on French intellectual royalty like Rousseau, Levi Strauss. I think he was bumptious- nice word btw. But yes, for the record, I am no Derrida, although I strive to dwell in the spirit of differance, nuance, generosity, and forgiveness that he so meticulously opened up.

Sorry if I sounded too harsh, synthome, but I perceived that you started all this by going after Unionist, which to me should not happen here.

When Derrida published the Grammatology, he was 37 and a professor at the École Normale Supérieure, a member of an elite intellectual group in Paris and already on his way on the international academic circuit (especially with the Yale crowd), so I woudn't overdo the melodrama of his actually daring to read Rousseau, y'know. (I read Rousseau, and I'm just a li'l ole lady from Medicine Hat.)  Derrida loved Rousseau; so do I; that's how we connected. He actually pays a clever indirect tribute in the Grammatology to the great Rousseau scholar of his time, Jean Starobinski, who seems to have got both the joke and the tribute that many others have missed (Starobinski added footnotes to the Grammatology to La Transparence et l'obstacle). The Grammatology is an audacious book in its rejection of classical French education (also part of the joke), but Derrida was very respectful of people who did good work, however different from his, like Starobinski.

I recognize that in some ways his whole life just had to be audacious -- Maghrebian Jew who survived WWII in Vichy France -- I mean, that would present a challenge, no question. Also, by the mid-1970s, the political climate in France was turning pretty neo, in the universities as well, the energy and optimism of the 1960s dissipated, and Derrida was beginning to feel fearful, I'm sure with good reason. That was one reason he appreciated so much his North American contacts.

L'affaire de Man was a great sadness for many, especially Derrida, although I never admired de Man and was sorry to see Derrida invest so much in him.

So it was a troubled life, like so many, but with many moments of well-deserved glory, and bravely lived by a genuinely good and gentle man.

Prophit, Derrida also spent a night in jail in Prague in 1982 after going there to speak to a group of dissident writers (inspired by the famous Czech Group 42). I know that he was very shaken by that experience, which must have brought back memories. It was hard to be a European of his generation and not have flashbacks whenever police power suddenly overwhelmed all humane reason.

L'affaire de Man is outlined roughly [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Man#Posthumous_controversy]here,[/URL] for those who don't know it. It left many people struggling with their consciences over the question of what a collaborator is, how we think of him, how we think of his work afterwards.

remind, it sounds to me like you don't really understand how Facebook works, especially when it comes to how politicians use it.

When you become "friends" with someone, all of your posts show up in that friend's newsfeed.  So whenever Cheri posted anything, all her "friends" had it posted on their news walls.  The reason why politicians try to friend everyone in the universe (and Cheri is one of those politicians, unless you believe that she just happens to be chatting with 4400 of her closest pals on Facebook) is because whenever you write a status update, you're broadcasting it to tons of people.  And on everyone's status update, people can write "comments" underneath it.  It's FB culture for everyone to broadcast what they're writing, and also FB culture for everyone to feel free to respond to whatever a friend posts.

Facebook is NOT private when you use it, not in the least.  When you friend thousands upon thousands of people (as Cheri has), and you're a politician who is clearly using FB to communicate with your constituents and "fans", then it is not some personal, private little space of yours.  Furthermore, politicians like Cheri who use social media for outreach generally ask everyone else to be THEIR friends, not the other way around.  It's probably someone's job to monitor Cheri's account and invite as many people as possible to be "friends" with her on FB.  That's how the majority of people in that protest group said they became "friends" with her on FB.

So this idea that someone is invading her personal space by posting comments under her FB posts is as ridiculous as claiming that someone who posts comments under a blogger's public posts is somehow invading the blogger's space.

As for Andrew "telling her what to do" - that's ridiculous too.  He was clearly just making a comment about how aggressive and out of control she was acting during the discussion.  It's a common sentiment, when someone's getting overheated and saying stupid shit online they might regret later to suggest that they "step away from the keyboard".  It's a funny way of saying, "You're out of control."  And, of course, as it turns out, the advice was valid - she WAS out of control.

Finally - sexism?  Please.  That's ridiculous.  Nobody in that thread did anything sexist.  There were lots of female posts in that thread.  And you know what?  Maybe if Cheri hadn't defriended and deleted the posts of the Muslim women and men of colour who tried to share their opinions with her before, there might have been more of them responding during Saturday night's thread.  Unless, of course, only women and men of colour who agree with her are the ones that are worth hearing from.

This is getting so tiresome. Why don't we chat about something really thought-provoking and consequential - like Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer!

remind wrote:

Freedom 55 wrote:

remind wrote:

That some are questioning CDN's self proclaimed "queerness" here is  absolutely hyprocritical.

Unfortunately, I think it's a legitimate issue to discuss.

I don't raise this lightly, which is why I decided to ask around to see if anyone knew she self-identified as queer prior to this weekend. I wanted to avoid jumping to any conclusions. I still am unsure what to think, but nothing I've heard or read so far suggests that my concerns are off-base.

 

Na, if a "unknown" person can come here and tell us all that they are woman, who has absolutely no intention of getting rid of their penis, and that all the rest of the women of the world and those here have to accept they are a woman, then a known a public figure, who states they are queer, means that it is hyprocritical that someone challenges her queerness, here.

No one can challenge said anonymous persons claim they are a woman, who does not want to get rid of their penis, and no one should be challenging CDN's claim by the same token. Whether it is true or not, is beside the point, it is about "true left" continuity and tolerating of hypocrisy here.

After all, if CDN is going to be called upon her lack of purity here, then  everyone else should be measuring up to their own levels of purity testing, eh!

Not the same issue, your comparison only apply if the anonymous person was accused of exercising male privilege, and the said person immediately claim even though she has a penis, she is actually a woman and therefore cannot be exercising male privilege.

Unionist is le sinthome wrote:

This again, from the one person least qualified to talk about good faith. Of course, this in a forum where such good faith is generally in very short supply when it comes to anyone disagreeing with the fundamentalist politics around here.

However, I refuse to believe that there is near unanimity here. I am shocked by how few rabblers have stood up against the bullying, the loose tongues, the personal attacks, the intellectual dishonesty, the deliberate misconstruing of DiNovo's position.

That is some handle.

The Tabernacle: You have destroyed us. You found the flaw in the crystal. We are gone. You are alone. - Zardoz, 1974

Sineed wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

This is getting so tiresome. Why don't we chat about something really thought-provoking and consequential - like Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer!

What did they do now?!?

Now Guergis wants to sue the airport employees who exposed her hissy fit - claiming that they violated her privacy!

Thank you for posting what you did Freedom 55. I would particularly like to thank you for the respectful, qualified way you wrote when you raised the points you did -- and I think they are completely valid. I too have encountered the situations where "allies" appropriate the identity of and start to speak on behalf of others... I think it is important to underscore that nothing in your post is there to deny or even significantly challenge DiNovo's statement, it simply seeks clarification.

I would really appreciate seeing the same points raised in the LGBT forum at some point, they are definitely worth exploring -- hopefully away from the currently over-charged atmosphere a discussion of DiNovo's words has generated.