Toronto Star, CJC in homophobic gay panic

spatrioter wrote: "Zerbisias is not the one who asked English to write a public editorial, so your suggestion that she deceived English is weak.

Good point.

Gus Williams: "...where do you get the idea that Farber asked English to write a column."

Pretty cheap shot, Mr. "Williams"!... spatrioter's sentence in no way asserts that Farber did. It merely says that English is fully responsible for writing that smear.

remind wrote:

Good point martin, and Mr William's statement is the typical kind of sleazy innuendo that is destroying CJC's credibility.

A distressing feature of unregenerate champions of Israel and its apartheid war criminal regime is their lack of any sense of irony and humour. When you have lost all righteousness in the eyes of the Almighty, only self-righteousness remains.

Unionist wrote: "When you have lost all righteousness in the eyes of the Almighty, only self-righteousness remains."

Okay, I know that you didn't think that one up yourself! Where did you get it from? I'm asking because I'd really like to use that quote at some point.

Unionist, that's a T shirt I'd wear! 

Gus Williams wrote:

And where do you get the idea that Farber asked English to write a column.  I've checked and I see no suggestion from either English or Farber that he "asked" for an article.

Farber 'asked' for the article by filing a complaint with the Star. It is the public editor who deals with these complaints.  Farber's complaint that he was "outed" was completely disingenuous since he knew, full well, that he was wearing a t-shirt saying "Nobody knows I'm gay". The complaint that it is unfair to identify people participating in the parade was also dishonest as Farber promoted his participation on Twitter, posting a picture of himself in the Parade wearing the "Nobody knows I'm gay" t-shirt, and is especially a bizarre comment for Farber to make when the CJC linked Canadian Jewish News named Farber and other CJC participants at the parade. Farber is sucking and blowing at the same time and his comment that "I have received numerous concerns from Jewish gays and lesbians who wonder why Ms. Zerbisias would identify people attending the parade in any fashion" cannot be taken seriously in light of his and the CJN's promotion of his Parade participation. His "complaint" is no more than an attempt to blow more smoke in the Star's face in an attempt to skewer Zerbisias.

Clearly Farber was simply lashing out at Zerbisias, a critic of right wing Zionism, and grasping at any straw he could. And his accusation that Zerbisias "would simply make up information of any sort and post it publicly" is contemptable and mendacious, so much so that even English had to address it in her followup column.

All in all, the CJC has harmed their credibility with the editors of the Star through their dishonest, half-truth laden complaint - a complaint that was a now obvious attempt to play the Star and smear one of their critics.

I find it strange that Kulanu, the Jewish LGBT group Farber marched with, evidently had absolutely nothing to say to protest Reuven Bulka's co-presidency of the CJC. Bulka is a noted homophobe who has also served as "spiritual advisor" to right wing anti-gay radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and has himself been on the "Scientific (sic) Advisory Committee" of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a psuedoscientific outfit devoted to "curing" gays of their homosexuality.

One would think a Jewish LGBT group that was actually concerned about LGBT rights would have condemned the CJC for having such a person in their leadership. Where was Farber, the noted human rights activist who wants everyone to know how gay-positive he is when his boss at the CJC was a homophobe? If Farber truly believed in gay rights, rather than simply exploiting the Pride Parade when it suited a political purpose, he would have spoken out against Bulka's anti-gay work. And had Kulanu been serious about gay rights, rather than simply being the gay-positive face of the CJC/UJA, they would have demanded Bulka's resignation years ago.

oldgoat wrote:

Unionist, that's a T shirt I'd wear! 

If Unionist will allow it to be used, that's a babble T-shirt I'd buy.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

oldgoat wrote:

Unionist, that's a T shirt I'd wear! 

If Unionist will allow it to be used, that's a babble T-shirt I'd buy.

You mean the "self-righteousness" epigram? Sure, I hereby declare it to be public domain, no attribution required. Just don't use Bubbles Bulka - I'm still working out a copyright on that one.

Thanks for this Unionist. I believe you will see that my comments in the last thread are correct.

My oh my do I remember this fiasco. I read Prophit's post in the other thread and then through this thread and Google refreshed my memory.

I recall the Jewish congress people marching at pride. Many of them and many others were wearing the tshirt. In Antonia's  original statement on someone's thread she made no mention of these tshirts, that is a fact for sure. I think the tshirt became a red herring and a mantra to attack CJC's credibility. One thing though is beyond dispute, Farber wore the tshirt and Antonia when she made her comment about Farber being gay had no knowledge that he was wearing it.

Other than that this whole thing was just stupid.

Cookie, I thought what was obvious was Farber's cynicism in pretending Z's comment was anything less than sarcastic and further claiming offence at being "outed" when he had tweeted about being at the march at the time and even posted a picture of himself - wearing a t-shirt saying "nobody knows I'm gay". How could Farber seriously complain about being "outed" when he outed himself first?

Quote:

I doubt that Farber thought in terms of "outing" himself

Exactly, which is why he shouldn't have thought of Z's comment as "outing" him either, and I don't think he did - I think either he or his bosses at the CJC saw an opportunity to go after Z with a trumped up charge and took it only to have it blow up in their faces.

This thread and the one about the banned children's book should be preserved as evidence in some sort of sociological case study of the CJC in action. It is truly mesmerizing.

Such interesting paranoia. I suppose its beyond some that there are those who actually support CJC in its human rights work who are also bloggers. They may be from all sides of the political spectrum and enjoy the "to and fro" of boards such as these. I doubt you are special.

skdadl wrote:

In my memory of the exchange on Antonia's blog, she was being polite to pass in silence over individual personalities. It was only when a hostile commenter goaded her that she came back with her snark about the T-shirt.

 

Bloggers get to do that on their own blogs, y'know. It's one of our internet tradishuns.

Anyone accusing her of anything else is talking through their hobby horse's hat.

Maysie wrote:

Catchfire's post at #80 has received a few complaints. I think he was being sarcastic. Catchfire, can you please elucidate?

I read it. What exactly is the problem? Seems like a reasonable conclusion given all the evidence.

Snark? maybe...but many a truth is "snarked" in jest

Well thank you Catchfire for your more fulsome explanation. And I mean the correct definition of fulsome http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fulsome

I undersdtand given your self-confessed admiration for Zerbisias (does she still write her column for the Star? I haven't seen it lately) that you will do whatever it takes to defend her. I actually admire you for that. I mean you will go as far as attacking other peoples positions claiming their worthlessness to defend your friend. Good for you.

And I know that the t-shirt issue is that bit of food that gets stuck between your teeth. Its bothersome isn't it? So you must do all you can to minimize it, even remove it. I get it.

Fact is though that if you read the earlier threads, you will notice how much emphasis was put on the t-shirt. You will see that even the Star wrote an entire piece on it suggesting its importance when in fact it played no role at all.

If you wish to continue harping go ahead. I will continue to respond appropriately. Have a wonderful Easter Sunday.

What sticks between my teeth is that there appears to be something like a campaign to threaten Antonia's job. Of course I can't prove that -- that's the way back-channel talk and influence work, so that we can never pin anything down. Her editors' first seriously flubbed public scolding of Antonia made them laughing-stocks about the blogosphere because Kathy English so clearly did not get blog culture. English followed up a week later with an only half-bad semi-apology to Antonia, but the very fact that one comment -- a comment, not even a post -- on a blog had brought the heavy management artillery down on Antonia's head made a lot of people start to wonder wtf was going on.

As Catchfire says, the T-shirt was for Antonia a passing excuse to bat back an offensive comment on her blog; the hostile response to it in public was clearly opportunistic and risibly operatic. The fear is that it was much worse in the background.

Many of us do live with that fear. We know we are in danger of being criminalized. What will happen to us when the attack on Iran begins and we go out into the streets to protest? McCarthyism is trying its best to be born in this country, and Antonia is one of the canaries in the mine.