contined from here
and yes, I have changed the thread title, as unionist took it upon himself to change the thread title when he continued it, to transmitt the message he wanted.
Ongoing battle around IAW, and using, or not using, the A word to describe Israel's actions in ON
Wed, 2010-03-17 13:42
#1
remind
Ongoing battle around IAW, and using, or not using, the A word to describe Israel's actions in ON
Wed, 2010-03-17 13:53
#2
That's pretty catchy. :D
Wed, 2010-03-17 13:55
#3
Why a thread that limits using the word "apartheid"? It is what it is. Just because Cheri claims Israel isn't an apartheid state does not make it so. So what message is being transmitted by this thread title?
I say this because this is a game of semantics now. Oh hey, I didn't like the message the other thread gave, so now I'll make my own with my own slant, which is fine, but is confusing. Do you believe it is an Apartheid state or are we now to stop using that word, because that is the message I'm getting in the OP (and I am probably getting it wrong - so correct remind if so).
Not sure if we want to further edit the OP title or not remind, but it seems that with this title we're back to square one. I guess another score for DiNovo and Shurman. No mention of Israel and Apartheid in the same sentence?
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:08
#4
remind
Stargazer, I merely used the letter A, as I did not wnat to make the title longer than it was, not because I did not want to use apartheid.
And now that I long at it it appears to be meaning Israel is involved in actions in ON, which perhaps they are, but that is not what I meant, so really I am not opposed to a thread title change, I just was making a point that unionist changed it after making a continued on from here OP.
When in essence, that is not what he was doing, he was actually starting a completely thread on what he wanted to slant towards.
all about how it appears on the front page and all...
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:09
#5
Catchfire
To be clear, Michelle, I never said there shouldn't be a backlash. DiNovo should be criticized, and severely, for her thoughtless and hypocritical actions on facebook, and of course, for her support of Shurman's bill. I merely said that it seemed people were piling up on a female politician disproportionately. I'm also not alone in that thought. I suggested that it might be time to move on to bigger, more relevant, and more effective projects. Some here disagree and would like to continue to pile on DiNovo until she crumbles. Fill your boots, I say.
For the record, I think your comments on the matter, Michelle, have been resepctable, well weighed, and principled.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:11
#6
We must have read completely different facebook posts. No one said anything disrespectful or threatening to her on FB (that was public anyways. I have no idea what her messages consisted of).
10 dollars to anyone who can point me to a "threatening" post from anyone of her supporters.
So, you're saying that discussing this is "attacking" her and we are trying to "destroy" her.
Wow. Okay then. Shut the thread. Game over. Cheri is a victim and we are destroying her deliberately because we just felt like it. Cheri is completely blameless. We on the left are just doing this for kicks and giggles.
That's it. No need to discuss this further.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:13
#7
"the A word" is actually longer than "apartheid". Check it out:
the A word
apartheid
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:16
#8
Catchfire
Come on, Stargazer. I don't think that's fair wrt what I wrote. I think repeated demands for her to apologize are over the top and hectoring. I think she probably did receive threats over the phone, as she claimed. I don't think the fb page was threatening, but I do think she took some hard knocks that shook her. It was an online pile-up, and that can be brutal. My position is to criticize her actions and comments, say she should apologize, and then move on.
ETA: I also think the thread title is a bit silly. Why not just "Cheri DiNovo and Apartheid"?
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:22
#9
I think it is fair to say DiNovo did not anticipate the response she has received.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:26
#10
remind
First of all, I agree with remind on one point - there's no reason to believe that someone will necessarily go to the police if they've been threatened. I would, but I'm not everyone else.Catchfire, the reason there's no backlash against the people you mention in post 98 is because we expect no better of them. We expect better of people who are supposed to be political allies.
I think the death threats really happened because there's always some idiot somewhere who will do stupid shit like that. And it's wrong, and there is no doubt about that. Even calls to her home are wrong - her family shouldn't have to put up with that shit. Andrea Horwath was absolutely right about that.
However, I also think that, once those threatening calls happened, they presented a pretty convenient way to smear progressives on Facebook who are standing in vocal opposition to her stand on Israeli Apartheid Week, when she suggested on Saturday night that they may have been the ones who made the calls. And the mainstream media lapped it up and even gave her a pass on her completely incoherent ranting and namecalling that night as a result.
So, good for her - well-played. She should enjoy the strokes she's getting from her new Conservative and Islamophobic buddies like Shurman and Dimant - she's earned them.
Where to start and what to address in this continued smearing of CDN.
Not going to waste much time, not worth it, other than to say...
there was nothing planned in the FB exgange on CDN's part at least, that I could see, as you yourself noted she was not in control.
What I saw and have read right from the beginning on this is, so called "freinds" stalking and repeatedly smearing her.
Making 1 comment is valid, or even 2, publically to her in her space, and/or going to her constituent office to speak with her, but beyond that, just like making repeated phone calls /or visits to someone you are in a fight with, it is stalking and harassment.
Indeed visits to her office should occur, and should have occured, as truthfully complaints over her actions should have really been made there, about something so important, don't you think? Then indeed, if answers to questions and actions were not approved of, picketing of her office could have and should have happened.
Would have got more media on the protestors side, eh! plus it would be a more fitting action that bullying, harassment and stalking.
In truth it appears to be a case of purposefully trying to destroy CDN, because truthfully these attacks are not taking exception, appropriately, of her words and actions. Thus it is my view they are merely an attempt to destroy her, or get her to quit politics, as opposed to any belief in what they say she transgressed in.
Wonder who wants to run in CDN's riding for the ONDP?
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:31
#11
remind
"the A word" is actually longer than "apartheid". Check it out:the A word
apartheid
No I was going to put "using or not using the aparthied word" and then decided to make a play on the whole damn thing and shorten the title, at the same time..
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:31
#12
Come on, Stargazer. I don't think that's fair wrt what I wrote.
It's perfectly obvious to me that Stargazer was responding to remind's opening post, not to yours.
I think repeated demands for her to apologize are over the top and hectoring.
Hectoring!? Um, no, Catchfire, [b]no one[/b] has asked her to apologize yet. I opened a thread saying it was not my place because I don't know her, don't support her, don't like her. It's her progressive allies and supporters and acquaintances who must do so. And so far, I haven't heard of anyone doing that in a meaningful way.
I think she probably did receive threats over the phone, as she claimed.
Yeah, me too, and I think she complained about them publicly to change the subject.
My position is to criticize her actions and comments, say she should apologize, and then move on.
I happen to agree - and if you read my initial proposal that she apologize and that we should then link arms and close the chapter, that's what I've said all along. But if she doesn't apologize, doesn't retract, doesn't show any recognition - what then? As long as she gives herself the right to do what she did in the legislature that day, how can you say the chapter is closed?
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:31
#13
From the previous thread
I think I have to make it very clear that I don't care whether Cheri DiNovo got death threats or not. It's not important to me.
What a lovely human being you are. That fact you can't see the terrible irony in your words and your continued abusive attitude to another human undermines whatever legitimate point you might have had. Not that we have acutally seen one of those from you.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:33
#14
Come on, Stargazer. I don't think that's fair wrt what I wrote. I think repeated demands for her to apologize are over the top and hectoring. I think she probably did receive threats over the phone, as she claimed. I don't think the fb page was threatening, but I do think she took some hard knocks that shook her. It was an online pile-up, and that can be brutal. My position is to criticize her actions and comments, say she should apologize, and then move on.
ETA: I also think the thread title is a bit silly. Why not just "Cheri DiNovo and Apartheid"?
I agree with you for the most part Catchfire, however, I don't agree that what was done to her (which was simply people respectfully trying to engage her in discussion over her stance, including many women, self-identified queers and Muslim "friends" of hers). It was a deserved pile on. She turned her back on her progressive base, and then spit on them more when they tried to engage her in discussion (by defriending and deleting any and all who disagreed with her). This is not what I want from any one in a leadership position.On top of that, she called people "fascists" in line with her anti-Muslim buddy Tarek Fatah.
If she would do the decent thing, which is apologize, then this would be over. However, not only has she not bothered to apologize, she has attacked those who criticized her words. That is a far stretch from being a "victim". She is not going to apologize. She is going to continue tossing progressives under the bus, which is what she is doing every time she is interviewed on this issue. You have to admit that calling people "fascists" and standing in strong support of Tarek Fatah is a little much.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:33
#15
From the previous thread
I think I have to make it very clear that I don't care whether Cheri DiNovo got death threats or not. It's not important to me.
What a lovely human being you are. That fact you can't see the terrible irony in your words and your continued abusive attitude to another human undermines whatever legitimate point you might have had. Not that we have acutally seen one of those from you.
Speak for yourself. I'm not included in the "I hate unionist camp".
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:34
#16
By the way, this is not about whether or not to use the term "apartheid". Anyone who doesn't agree that it's accurate, or doesn't think its a good tactic, is free to say so. These threads have been very specifically about the [b]attempts to suppress IAW[/b] and any use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel. The other debate can go on somewhere else - in the international forum for example. The subject here is the growth of fascist repression of free debate and dissent, part of Harper's onslaught including Durban and KAIROS and UNRWA and Peter Kent's war declaration and Rights and Democracy - need I go on?
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:37
#17
From the previous thread
I think I have to make it very clear that I don't care whether Cheri DiNovo got death threats or not. It's not important to me.
What a lovely human being you are. That fact you can't see the terrible irony in your words and your continued abusive attitude to another human undermines whatever legitimate point you might have had. Not that we have acutally seen one of those from you.
Speak for yourself. I'm not included in the "I hate unionist camp".
I thought I was, but the next time I am going to express my opinion I will get your okay first to make sure I am allowed to hold such an opinion. Oh the irony of the comments of some posters.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:38
#18
back at ya!
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:41
#19
Why not call it Palestinian Human Rights Week? Whatever legitimate points the IAW organizers are trying to make are undermined. A lot of Jews, even if they're not "Zionist" feel singled out by such a title, and many are open to hearing criticism of Israeli policy if it isn't framed in such a knee-jerk, demonizing manner.
I disagree strongly with Shurman's bill, however. Horwath took a good stance. Criticizing one's use of words is part of the free debate. Attempting to shut it down is wrong.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:42
#20
I think stargazer was responding to your use of the pronoun "we."
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:43
#21
Did I try to supress your voice, like you did mine no? I only dared to question the humanity of the darling Unionist who doesn't apparently give a rats ass if another person is threatened or not. In my books that is just another kind of fundamentalism and should be called to task. You are free to believe being a jerk is okay as long as you agree with them.
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:46
#22
[quote=St. Paul's Progressive]
Why not call it Palestinian Human Rights Week? Whatever legitimate points the IAW organizers are trying to make are undermined.
[/quote]
I don't know, that might be a little bit strong. What do you think of Keystone's idea from a previous thread, calling it, "Israel isn't being very nice week" or, if that's even a bit strong, we could call it, "Israel might possibly be a teensy bit wrong about some things, maybe Week"?
Or maybe just "Palestinians are cool" week. How about that?
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:52
#23
Life, the universe, I think you might have misunderstood what Unionist meant.
What I took from his post isn't that he doesn't care about her wellbeing after she received death threats.
I think what he meant is that whether or not she received threats is beside the point in the discussion - it's not relevant to the discussion of whether she was right or wrong on the motion, and whether she has tried to stifle debate.
Unionist doesn't strike me as the type who can't feel empathy. He just used "I don't care" to mean "I think that's irrelevant to the point" rather than "I don't care about her wellbeing".
Wed, 2010-03-17 14:55
#24
Caissa would be correct. Thanks Caissa.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:03
#25
You're welcome, Stargazer.
I was looking forward to the pro-DiNovo thread.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:08
#26
Me too! Ha, now that would have been heated.
I have no doubt that she does have progressive leanings, and has worked tirelessly on many issues. She just failed on this one.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:12
#27
Lou Arab
Life, the universe, I think you might have misunderstood what Unionist meant.
What I took from his post isn't that he doesn't care about her wellbeing after she received death threats.
I think what he meant is that whether or not she received threats is beside the point in the discussion - it's not relevant to the discussion of whether she was right or wrong on the motion, and whether she has tried to stifle debate.
Well, he did say this:
I think I have to make it very clear that I don't care whether Cheri DiNovo got death threats or not. It's not important to me. She's an adult and a public figure. She can handle it. I am perfectly prepared to believe that she got some vicious ugly PMs saying horrible things.
Michelle if your characterization of the comments are correct, the inclusion of 'she's an adult and a public figure. She can handle it.' are unnecessary and cruel.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:17
#28
What is this? Get Unionist to say something nasty about Lou day? Lou, I love you, and if had the budget, I'd gladly bear your children. Now perhaps you could comment on the real political issue at hand instead of siding with another poster who made an unprovoked personal attack against me, in violation of babble policy.
Do you think Cheri DiNovo should apologize and retract? If so, who is best placed to put that suggestion to her in a way that won't aggravate the situation? We need her on our side.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:18
#29
I only dared to question the humanity of the darling Unionist who doesn't apparently give a rats ass if another person is threatened or not.
I would care if you were threatened. I care deeply about Life.
In my books that is just another kind of fundamentalism and should be called to task.
The library left a message about those books - seems they're overdue. Need a loan? Life is fine.
By the way, thanks Michelle for understanding my point. You may want to lend Life one of your books after s/he's returned the naughty ones. The thing about lending to Life, though, is that we're all living on borrowed time.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:18
#30
I detect a lot of hostility towards unionist. Why not just address him directly Lou? I knew what he meant, because I know his posting style and I know he isn't a mean or spiteful person. I think Michelle also knows this. Unionist cleared it up already. So why bother poking him with a stick some more?
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:20
#31
I detect a lot of hostility towards unionist. Why not just address him directly Lou? I knew what he meant, because I know his posting style and I know he isn't a mean or spiteful person. I think Michelle also knows this. Unionist cleared it up already. So why bother poking him with a stick some more?
Thanks, Stargazer, but you're wasting your breath unfortunately. Some people have a hard time keeping political disagreement separate from personal dislike. And it's political disagreement which is at the very heart of the problem here.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:27
#32
Lou Arab
Unionist, I can't resist taking you on, you are just too jucy a target sometimes. But you have clarified your remarks re: not caring about death threats, so I'll lay off for awhile.
I'm still not going to enter the main debate. I love the passion on both sides, and generally am pretty symptathetic to the Palestinian cause, but I'm just not going to join a heated argument unless I'm sure of my position, which I'm not.
Lou, I love you, and if had the budget, I'd gladly bear your children.
I'm not sure what kind of a 'budget' is needed to bear my children. Really, I'm a simple guy. Dinner and a movie is all that's generally required.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:27
#33
What is this? Get Unionist to say something nasty about Lou day? Lou, I love you, and if had the budget, I'd gladly bear your children. Now perhaps you could comment on the real political issue at hand instead of siding with another poster who made an unprovoked personal attack against me, in violation of babble policy.
Do you think Cheri DiNovo should apologize and retract? If so, who is best placed to put that suggestion to her in a way that won't aggravate the situation? We need her on our side.
No personal attack, simply calling you on your callous crap. You feel free to do whatever you wish all the time. But as soon as you do it you go on and on about how you are being personally attacked. Irony all around.
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:32
#34
I'm just plain confused now. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will, even if I'm not wrong), but I thought this discussion began when rasmus linked to DiNovo's FB meltdown, which I continue to consider problematic in a number of ways.
And even before that, the problem wasn't the A-word -- it was the unconstitutional, McCarthyist presumption of parliamentarians that they have the right to tell citizens how they can or cannot think, how they can or cannot express themselves, what their "values" must be. It's really no different from the CPCCA discussion, which of course makes Dawg's attack on babble so ironic, given his position on the CPCCA (HUAC North, which of course is exactly what it is).
Wed, 2010-03-17 15:57
#35
Nope, you're correct skdadl.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:06
#36
Personally I prefer promoting division among the conservative right and rightwing liberals wrt 9/11 than going after Satan's little helpers in Israel.
And I will continue to vote for the NDP and support Cheri DiNovo who are fighting for social democracy right here in the have-not banana republic of Ontariariario.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:07
#37
Thanks, Stargazer. Torture -- y'know, it's always such a problem for me. Like, I find it rilly rilly hard to get past torture.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:11
#38
Torture Central right next door to Bananada.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:12
#39
I hope that kitteh is ok, Fidel. And of course I go on voting NDP -- what else can we do? Hold your ground, Andrea!
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:22
#40
Smokey's a-ok for now except for his runny eyes, thanks Skdadl. I think he had an infection of some kind. He hasn't fallen over in a number of weeks now and trotting around the house like before.
9/11, that's the one the bipartisan war criminals don't want questioning. Israel is like South Africa. They'd much rather the left tilt at windmills in Israel than focus on vicious empire central. Israel's days are numbered according to a US Government report.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:28
#41
I'm just plain confused now. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will, even if I'm not wrong), but I thought this discussion began when rasmus linked to DiNovo's FB meltdown, which I continue to consider problematic in a number of ways.
And even before that, the problem wasn't the A-word -- it was the unconstitutional, McCarthyist presumption of parliamentarians that they have the right to tell citizens how they can or cannot think, how they can or cannot express themselves, what their "values" must be. It's really no different from the CPCCA discussion, which of course makes Dawg's attack on babble so ironic, given his position on the CPCCA (HUAC North, which of course is exactly what it is).
That's correct - 100%. It would be ironic if DiNovo's attack on progressives became a re-opening of the discussion here about how good or bad Israel really is, instead of all of us agreeing that it's not a good thing to join Harper and Kenney in their attack on democracy in Canada.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:31
#42
I hope that kitteh is ok, Fidel. And of course I go on voting NDP -- what else can we do? Hold your ground, Andrea!
When the electorate isn't even allowed to voice their discontent in a civil manner without being labelled the same as those who are disgusting enough to utter violent threats. One more reason not to waste time voting in my books.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:46
#43
remind
The thread unionist linked to of rasmus' was indeed only about CDN "self destruction", it made NO pretense of being about anything other than that. It was a mocking attack geared to further her destruction, and sfae. Please do not make it appear noble as it wasn't.
Thread title is Cheri di Novo self-destructs
The former threads on this were about her:
1. Taking a stand opposite that what some of her allies believed she should be
2. How politicians do not have the right to tell Canadians what they should or should not being thinking and using as words.
Wed, 2010-03-17 16:56
#44
I hope that kitteh is ok, Fidel. And of course I go on voting NDP -- what else can we do? Hold your ground, Andrea!
When the electorate isn't even allowed to voice their discontent in a civil manner without being labelled the same as those who are disgusting enough to utter violent threats. One more reason not to waste time voting in my books.
Right you are 1200 percent! I shall refuse to waste my time voting Liberal or Tory based on what's being in Toronto about a political matter in another hemisphere of the world. It's always good to have tiny countries in the Middle East determine how we vote for social democracy in the Northern Puerto Rico.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:04
#45
18.2% of the valid vote was for the NDP in the last Federal election. Since the voter turn out was 58.8% of the eligible population that would mean that the NDP got support from 10.7% of all eligible Canadians, while 41.2% considered them similar enough to the Liberals and Conservates that they didn't care. The fact is if just one party new or pre-existing showed enough respect to voters that they could trust them and offered reasonable comprimise on divisive issues they could easily win a commanding majority particularly given our first past the post system.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:15
#46
while 41.2% considered them similar enough to the Liberals and Conservates that they didn't care
Follow the campaign funding war chests. Did the NDP have the same kind of money to spend on reaching all Canadians with their socialist propaganda as the two Bay Street parties? I don't think so. I've met people in my hometown who still think the NDP are a party of Bolsheviks. I wonder who with the money and access to propaganda tools educated them with that idea over extended periods of time?
No, I think Canadians aren't voting because they are just not impressed with the two old line parties' records in power over the last 25 years. And this is that point in time when the Liberal Party risks becoming an irrelevant conservative party unless they move back to the middle-left from far right politics. Canadians aren't falling for Liberal Party campaign promises on the left and governance on the right in such large phony-majority numbers anymore.
Harper's still a 22% tin pot even with all that Bay Street money behind the reformatories.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:17
#47
It was an online pile-up, and that can be brutal.
As most Babblers know first hand.
And even before that, the problem wasn't the A-word -- it was the unconstitutional, McCarthyist presumption of parliamentarians that they have the right to tell citizens how they can or cannot think, how they can or cannot express themselves, what their "values" must be.
I agree that's the core issue with the Ontario motion. At the same time, it wouldn't matter an iota what IAW was called. The underlying issue is BDS - something I don't think that the NDP supports at this time. So if it wasn't called IAW and was called some "nicey nicey" name, the motion would have still gone forward equating BDS with anti-semitism and hatred. That is now official federal federal government's policy - just ask KAIROS (who only considered whether to consider BDS in the past and chose not to do so). They were smeared and punished for just engaging in a discussion some years ago.
All the suffering that people have experienced and the work done by human rights activists is being turned on its head. Perhaps this is the slippery slope that some warned about regarding Canada's hate crime laws. Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it?
The "A" word debate is a red herring.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:29
#48
DiNovo smears activists some more...
I love the spin - that the people disagreeing with her on Facebook are the ones who are "threatening" her. She begs the people in that conversation on Saturday night, none of whom were doing anything wrong, to stop threatening her and to leave her family alone, and then it gets reported as fact in the mainstream news that activists engaging her on FB threatened her and her family. They say nothing about her freaking out and calling people fascists and idiots even though it was in the same thread.
Sorry, but this sucks. She knows, or at least should know, damn well that none of the NDP supporters talking to her on Facebook in those threads was threatening her.
It's a smear, and she's complicit in it. And this is the second smear. She smeared activists first in the legislature, then smeared them again when they tried to raise objections to the first smear.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:37
#49
She's lost any and all respect I held for her.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:44
#50
DiNovo smears activists some more...
I love the spin - that the people disagreeing with her on Facebook are the ones who are "threatening" her. She begs the people in that conversation on Saturday night, none of whom were doing anything wrong, to stop threatening her and to leave her family alone, and then it gets reported as fact in the mainstream news that activists engaging her on FB threatened her and her family. They say nothing about her freaking out and calling people fascists and idiots even though it was in the same thread.
Sorry, but this sucks. She knows, or at least should know, damn well that none of the NDP supporters talking to her on Facebook in those threads was threatening her.
It's a smear, and she's complicit in the lies that are now being told in the media.
Actually that is a complete fabrication of her comments. The only person claiming that the threats were made on Facebook is the headline writer. She is quoted as saying emails and phone calls to her home and about commenting about them on Facebook - not that threats were made on Facebook. Much different than the spin you are trying to get away with.
Wed, 2010-03-17 17:45
#51
remind
Nonsense Michelle.
Please do reread what I said above regarding the stalking and harassing on Facebook.
You have issues with what she did state it a couple of times politely on her wall if your are "friends". You have issues beyond that you take it like a mature adult to her constituency office, and deal with it there. Even if you have to picket said office to get your point across.
just as if there are seriosu issues here at babble you take it to the mods by email, you do not harang all over the place. If you do your threads get shut or you get banned.
going beyond that is bullying stalking and harassment. Just as if you and a friend were having a fight, you do not repeat phone call them.
Plus I have absolutely no doubt that some who were her facebook friends also targeted her at home or through pm's. Fuck I know the pm's I get here ffs over much less.from supposed allies.
And my saying so is not smearing anyone.