I audited some Taylor courses, and several of his daughters (5-6 kids, I think) went to McGill in my '70s era; one teaches in PoliSci at York or UofT;
he certainly raised the level of debate -- can you imagine a '60s Trudeau-Charles Taylor debate ??
-- Ignatieff, eat your heart out: real issues!
- Incumbent (with current or new candidates)
- Winnable Seats
- Competitive Seats
- Ridings with some profile
- Respectable losers
- Pathetic losers
I think that Mount Royal is either #4 or #5. In other words a riding fairly low on the radar. Any discussion of the candidate must also include the point that he has almost zilch chance of being an MP.
definitely a 5 today, and late 1970s vs candidate Trudeau, a 6; 
Mount Royal includes a huge suburban end of riding with well-off burghers on tailored streets in a planned community, w. high incomes galore;
no wonder (distant) 3rd place is an NDP triumph there ! N.D.G. way more sociologically approachable ...
It's definitely an error. The riding is pluarlity Jewish.
There is some potentially "fertile ground" for the NDP in the Snowdon part of Mount Royal which border Outremont and whihc is very multicultural and working class. As I mentioned earlier - its not inconceivable that a future redistribution of electoral boundaries could move some of that territory into Outremont - in which case it would be good to start tilling the soil!
Maybe Itcush has the same view son the Middle East as Cotler and maybe he doesn't - but there are about a thousand other political issues out there where the NDP and Liberals do have different views and where I expect that a social democrat like Itcush from an CCF/NDP family in Saskatchewan has far more progressive views than a rightwing Liberal like Cotler. But then again if you think that ISRAEL ISALL THAT MATTERS - none of that is of any consequence!
It's not all that matters but it says something fundamental about your politics if you've been 'an unabashed' supporter of an apartheid settler state your whole life. Who cares if you're a self proclaimed Social Democrat or your grandma was in the CCF? That's the typical defense of all the 'left' apologists for the atrocities of the last ten years including Glavin, Hitchens and Blair. "Look at my pedigree, my pedigree, I'm leftwing when it comes to everything except killing Arabs and stealing their land and resources. That's an issue only the fringe-left cares about..."
I agree with radiorahim. Especially when it comes to Mulclair and Cauchon, except I'd go further and say it'd be better if Cauchon won. He's on the progressive wing of the Liberal party whereas Mulclair has made it pretty clear where he stands and how quickly he'd slip the knife into the back of the most progressive NDP MP in Parliament.
You sound like some of the pro-Israel fanatics I meet who think that the extent to which a Canadian politician is pro-Israel is the one and only issue of any consequence. Maybe Itcush has the same view son the Middle East as Cotler and maybe he doesn't - but there are about a thousand other political issues out there where the NDP and Liberals do have different views and where I expect that a social democrat like Itcush from an CCF/NDP family in Saskatchewan has far more progressive views than a rightwing Liberal like Cotler. But then again if you think that ISRAEL ISALL THAT MATTERS - none of that is of any consequence!
The classic argument of the "love me, love me, love me I'm a liberal" types that Phil Ochs sang about in the 1960's.
There's these crazy folks on the one side...and these crazy folks on the other side...but all of us nice reasonable "respectable" folks in the middle.
The rights of the Palestinians are "icky poo"...don't wanna deal with that...just like alot of "respectable" types didn't want to deal with "controversial" issues like LGBT rights, abortion rights, women's rights, the War Measures Act and locking up Japanese Canadians during the second world war.
Much as you might like alot of us to STFU on Palestine Stockholm. I ain't gonna STFU. Deal with it.
If you don't like Jeff Itcush's position on the Middle East (or at leats you don't THINK you like since we really don't know much about what his views are) - then I guess you wouldn't like ANYONE's views in the parliament of Canada since as far as i know all 308 MPs from all parties are "pro-Israel" to some extent (given that acknowledging that Israel should exist can be contrued as making a person a "supporter of Israel"). Libby Davies is a great friend of Israel, she always reiterates her support for Israel's existence within secure borders and I'm happy to see that. I'm also happy to see her criticize some of the excesses of the current Israeli government - and so it should be.
Sorry Stockholm. Terminology along the lines of being "pro-Israel" implies blind support and justification for the actions of the Israeli government. The media and the Israeli lobby have hammered home this frame. The fact that anyone who dares criticise the actions of the government has to qualify that statement that they don't hate the state of Israel or Jews or else get viciously attacked in the media proves this.
Know what the difference is between Davies and Itcush? Davies does not generally make statements about how she supports Israel. It's not mere semantics, it's fundamental.
A couple of elections ago we had two different candidates in Richmond. Itrath Said ran against John Cummins and Dale Jackaman ran against Raymond Chan. Itrath is a leading figure in Vancouver's middle east and peace movements. She knows the issues inside out. Dale on the other hand advanced the standard "the truth is somewhere in the middle" crap that he learned during his tour of duty with the UN. In the end though their views had limited importance. Dale's views never really saw the light of day except I think at the Jewish Society all-candidates meeting (going by memory). Itrath did represent the party as a regional spokesperson and got some coverage, but even then it wasn't anything grand.
Marginal canddates are so far down the food chain, that they deserve only minimal attention.
bTW,
to update myself, looked up riding's demographics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Royal_(electoral_district)
Wikipedia, or shall we say Wackopedia, says "50 per cent Arab" ethnically, but 5 just per cent Muslim:
Demographics
.......................
Q.: while the riding has changed ethnically along Cote des Neiges and Jean Talon, I highly doubt this information, or that a strong supporter of Israel would be the sitting MP and idem the NDP nominee with those census figures...
-- anybody??
Dale on the other hand advanced the standard "the truth is somewhere in the middle" crap that he learned during his tour of duty with the UN.
never heard of the guy before, but he sounds OK to me:
Dale Jackaman
Party: New Democratic Party of Canada
Birthdate: June 2, 1956
Age: 52
Birthplace: Montreal
Marital Status: Married
Children: One daughter
Career Background: One of the founders and past executive director of British Columbia's largest anti-tobacco activist and lobby group, Airspace Action on Smoking and Health. Served as information technology director and a senior manager at BC Research Inc. Served three tours of duty in the Middle East with the Canadian Armed Forces Signal Corps.
Electoral History
Provincial: Defeated in Richmond Centre in 2005
Federal: Defeated in this riding in 2004
"Terminology along the lines of being "pro-Israel" implies blind support and justification for the actions of the Israeli government."
I'm sure that columnists at Ha'aretz and members of the Knesset from the lefftwing Meretz party would call themselves "pro-Israel" as well in that they are Israeli - but that doesn't seem to prevent any of them from being highly, highly critical of Israeli government policies.
I'm sure that columnists at Ha'aretz and members of the Knesset from the lefftwing Meretz party would call themselves "pro-Israel" as well in that they are Israeli - but that doesn't seem to prevent any of them from being highly, highly critical of Israeli government policies.
So I guess if someone described themselves as pro-Hamas, you wouldn't automatically assume that they support all of Hamas's positions?
rightwing Liberal like Cotler.
Cotler is not a social democrat, but I don't know if I'd call him a "rightwing Liberal." He was pretty progressive as Justice Minister.
Besides identifying as a "Zionist" in some form - which is to be expected from someone who teaches at a Jewish parochial school - we know nothing about Itcush's views on Israel.
"So I guess if someone described themselves as pro-Hamas, you wouldn't automatically assume that they support all of Hamas's positions?"
Hamas is not a country. Its a political party/militia. Saying you are pro-Hamas can be juxtaposed with being "pro-Israeli Beitenu or Pro-Likud".
Dale on the other hand advanced the standard "the truth is somewhere in the middle" crap that he learned during his tour of duty with the UN.
never heard of the guy before, but he sounds OK to me:
Dale is a great guy, he does great work for the community and has carried the flag for the NDP on a number of occasions. He is just wrong on Middle East policy. And as a unelectable candidate that is not really important.
Hamas is not a country. Its a political party/militia. Saying you are pro-Hamas can be juxtaposed with being "pro-Israeli Beitenu or Pro-Likud".
So one can't be a supporter of Hamas while criticizing some of it's positions?
There is a difference between choosing to support one political party/militia out of many and expressing support for the existence of a nation that contains a plethora of parties and opinions.
There is a difference between choosing to support one political party/militia out of many and expressing support for the existence of a nation that contains a plethora of parties and opinions.
So I can't support the NDP while disagreeing with some of it's positions? Or is that only to Hamas that your comment applies.
At any rate, there are lots of countries in the world. Couldn't you just move to a country that you like and support them?
This is a ridiculous argument...Israel is a country and Hamas is a political party/militia/vigilante group. Let me make it simple for you:
I support Israel. I support Palestine
I do NOT support Hamas and i do NOT support the Jewish Defence League
Calm down Stockholm, the loyalty oath isn't until later on. This was just in regards to an earlier quote that normally saying that a person is "pro-" this or that side, usually means that they uncritically support that particular side, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
Personally, I often find the issue of saying that one support's one side a bit childish. As if one party represents good and lightness, and the other is evil. I think it is more mature to say that one supports certain principles. For example, the right not to be punished collectively, or the right to not have your home or neighbourhood bulldozed. Little things like that. It is a more useful device, as it allows one to clear out the clutter of relative atrocities that are inevitably committed by either side and focus on the fundamentals which, in this case, is that Israel is occupying some land that it shouldn't. Or, we can just say "I supprt Israel and Palestine, and Turkey, and America" and go on singing "This Land is Your Land".
But alas, thread drift. Go NDP Candidate in Mount Royal.
We don't know Itcush's position on the Israel/Palestinian issue, that's true, but if someone makes an effort to explicitly state their "life long support" of Israel, given the contentiousness of that issue, then I think it's a fair question to ask as to what specifically his "life long support" actually means in terms of the Israel/Palestinian situation.
Some NDPers actually believe that this issue is a "make or break" issue when it comes to supporting a person as an NDP candidate, and should be allowed to present their views on such a candidate.
I support the existence of Israel (not necessarily as a "right", at least no more or less than any other nation has a "right to exist",) and I also support Palestinians right not be be discriminated against, bombed, shot at, tortured, maimed, and killed, by Israeli settlers and the IDF, but I would not consider it out of bounds to be questioned on specifics of my positions if I were running for office.
rightwing Liberal like Cotler.Cotler is not a social democrat, but I don't know if I'd call him a "rightwing Liberal." He was pretty progressive as Justice Minister.
Yes, it was under Cotler that same-sex marriage was passed.
There isn't anything particularly left/right about gayness or SSM. SSM is an issue of fundamental rights.
We don't know Itcush's position on the Israel/Palestinian issue, that's true, but if someone makes an effort to explicitly state their "life long support" of Israel, given the contentiousness of that issue, then I think it's a fair question to ask as to what specifically his "life long support" actually means in terms of the Israel/Palestinian situation.
Is it a stretch to suggest we don't even need to ask?
It seems unfair to condemn someone before hearing them out. Most prairie socialists I know are right on. Sooner or later Itcush will make his positions vis a vis Israel clearer. At that point people can critique his positions.
If the NDP had a Palestinian candidate who proclaimed that they are a "lifelong supporter of Palestine", it wouldn't be right to say that they support suicide bombing.
We don't know Itcush's position on the Israel/Palestinian issue, that's true, but if someone makes an effort to explicitly state their "life long support" of Israel, given the contentiousness of that issue, then I think it's a fair question to ask as to what specifically his "life long support" actually means in terms of the Israel/Palestinian situation.Is it a stretch to suggest we don't even need to ask?
Not sure what you're asking here.
I certainly believe that asking the question is very valid.
I'm not sure that taking for granted that his "life long support of Israel" means he supports Israel Apartheid is totally fair ... BUT ... I see no big issue with being very suspicious about what "life long support of Israel" really means, and if a clearer explanation is not forthcoming in a reasonable time frame, then "playing it safe" and assuming it means "the worst case" becomes reasonable.
Personally at this time I am very suspicious, leaning towards "the worst case" given his other associations .. but I'm willing to hear him explain his stance when he is willing to give it ... for now.
Personally at this time I am very suspicious, leaning towards "the worst case" given his other associations .. but I'm willing to hear him explain his stance when he is willing to give it ... for now.
I was leaning in that direction, perhaps more strongly than you were.
There isn't anything particularly left/right about gayness or SSM. SSM is an issue of fundamental rights.
Whether it should be a left/right issue or not, the fact remains that it is predominantly Liberals/left of centre parties that support it, and Conservative/right of centre parties that oppose it. This pattern occurs not only in Canada but in other countries as well. Just look at the way the parties have voted on this - the right-wingers voted against it.
I disagree entirely. Indeed, you are talking about social conservatives, not all people on the right are social conservatives, even the extreme right wingnuts such as George Smitherman are not at all opposed. Paul Martin, another extreme rightist and capitalist privateer, revealed that he was morally opposed, however, to his credit he also agreed that it was an issue of rights and legality, and in way on constitutional grounds he had to support it.
Meanwhile of course Bev Desjardin from the NDP was opposed.
You sound like some of the pro-Israel fanatics I meet who think that the extent to which a Canadian politician is pro-Israel is the one and only issue of any consequence.
Just as the NDP would not run a candidate who was anti-abortion, I work towards a party that does not run candidates who support apartheid.
If the NDP had a Palestinian candidate who proclaimed that they are a "lifelong supporter of Palestine", it wouldn't be right to say that they support suicide bombing.
All violence flows from the occupation. As long as the institutionalized violence of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza continues, resistance to occupation will continue, which may include violence.
All violence flows from Hamas led terrorism. As long as the institutionalized violence of Hamas's occupation of Gaza continues, resistance to terrorism will continue, which may include violence.
In the last election all 308 NDP candidates accepted and supported the NDP platform which calls for a two state solution in the Middle East and supports the existence of Israel within secure borders and free from terrorist attack - you can call that "supporting apartheid" if you want and you can maybe find a few members of the Flat Earth Society who agree with you. You may have to wait a few centuries before you get all 308 NDP candidates opposing the existence of Israel. Maybe you should simply form a new party called the "Anti-Israel Party" and see how many votes it gets.
Yeah, but it doesn't recognize the right of Palestinian to be free of occupation. In fact, after a couple of decades listening to this bullshit we all know that "secure borders" for Israel means occupation for Palestinians. And Jack Layton's wise words on Israeli security, were, as I remember it; "much of what is being done is necessary". But that is just reality continue on...
Just as the NDP would not run a candidate who was anti-abortion, I work towards a party that does not run candidates who support apartheid.
Israel is not the only country in the world that favours a certain religion over others.
Many Arab countries favour Islam at the expense of people of other religions. Are these countries also "apartheid" countries that must be opposed?
Should the NDP start up a campaign against all the countries in the world that don't treat all religions equally?
Just as the NDP would not run a candidate who was anti-abortion, I work towards a party that does not run candidates who support apartheid.
Israel is not the only country in the world that favours a certain religion over others.
This crapola. Geeze I was trying to ignore this thread about this completely irrelevant go nowhere candidate in Mount Royal... but this is such crap.
There may be other countries that "favour" certain religions over another. A couple indeed even surpass Israel for pure religious bigotry. Saudi Arabia is a good example. However, in the name of that cause Saudi Arabia is not occupying a population of millions of persons and making them live under martial law because they are not Muslims.
Indeed, in the case of Gaza they are making 1.5 people live under permanent blockade in the largest open air prison in the world.
And, its not about "favouring" people of one religion over another. It is about the absolute exclusion of certain persons because they are not Jews, but because they are Arabs. Its called racism.
However, in the name of that cause Saudi Arabia is not occupying a population of millions of persons and making them live under martial law because they are not Muslims.
Indeed, in the case of Gaza they are making 1.5 people live under permanent blockade in the largest open air prison in the world.
This debate has a chicken/egg quality about it.
On the one side we have:
If Israel was not occupying Palestinian territory, there would be peace.
And on the other side we have:
If Israel was not threatened by its neighbors, there would be no need for it to occupy the West Bank and Gaza.
So the solution would seem to be:
- for Israel to stop occupying Palestinian territory and for the Arab world to stop threatening Israel.
In other words - land for peace.
Hopefully the current talks between Israel and the Palestinians will bear fruit and in a year Abu Mazen, Bibi, and Hillary will win nobel prizes as Israel and Palestine establish the much sought after two-state solution.
And, its not about "favouring" people of one religion over another. It is about the absolute exclusion of certain persons because they are not Jews, but because they are Arabs. Its called racism.
And how is this different from what goes on in countries like Saudi Arabia?
Are Jews given equal rights in countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, ...?
And, its not about "favouring" people of one religion over another. It is about the absolute exclusion of certain persons because they are not Jews, but because they are Arabs. Its called racism.
And how is this different from what goes on in countries like Saudi Arabia?
Are Jews given equal rights in countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, ...?
Exactly brother. isreal is comparble to Saudi Arabia. Nice company you keep.
Nor did any of those countries expel 1 million odd jews out into the desert, and then impose occupation upon their decendants for generation after generation, deny them their rights to their lands, their basic human rights, their collective rights.
Anyway, you're the guy who tried to argue that Syria never recognized UN resolution 242, then backtracked and rewrote your post when you were corrected on this detail, in order to make it appear like you knew what you were talking about.
And I'll correct you on a point here, since you have decided to slander the Lebanese people in your insufferable efforts to defend the racist policies of Israel. Lebanon never expelled or encouraged any Jews to leave Lebanon. Nor was there any particular law that forbade Jewish or any other immigration to Lebanon.
Check your facts before you disseminate false history. False history for the purposes of defamation of "a people" according to Simon Wisenthal is racist slander.
All violence flows from Hamas led terrorism. As long as the institutionalized violence of Hamas's occupation of Gaza continues, resistance to terrorism will continue, which may include violence.
Hamas's occupation of Gaza? What colour is the sky in your world? Seriously Stockholm, that comment shows a pathetic lack of respect for the intelligence of any readers here. It's almost as if you're saying: "they're too stupid to do a google search and find out that I'm wrong".
Stockholm was parodying the post immediately above the one you quote, Kloch.
Back to the thread topic, I'm also one of those people who finds "lifelong support" for Israel to be a deal-breaker in an NDP candidate.
It just shows a general lack of principle, that they are willing to sell out the party's basic ideas about racial equality and anti-militarism in order to get ahead in Canadian society.
they are willing to sell out the party's basic ideas about racial equality and anti-militarism in order to get ahead in Canadian society.
"Get ahead???"
Are you suggesting the NDP is pandering to "money and the ethnic vote?"
Pandering to the elite neo-liberal world view, is more like it.
*sigh* What is happening with the NDP?
First they join the Reform Party to try kill the gun registry and now it seems they've been infiltrated by the Israel lobby.
I'm starting to question the NDP's whole point of existance.
Back to the thread topic, I'm also one of those people who finds "lifelong support" for Israel to be a deal-breaker in an NDP candidate.
I guess that means you have no one to vote for anywhere in canada since as far as I know all 308 people running for the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives or the Greens and all 75 BQ candidates all support Israel's existence and always have.
It is pretty sick, you are right.
Back to the thread topic, I'm also one of those people who finds "lifelong support" for Israel to be a deal-breaker in an NDP candidate.
I guess that means you have no one to vote for anywhere in canada since as far as I know all 308 people running for the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives or the Greens and all 75 BQ candidates all support Israel's existence and always have.
There's no need to repeat yourself, I read the comments you made earlier in the thread.
I happen to see some wiggling room between "massacre all Israelis" and "Israel right or wrong". There is actually a range of opinion on the matter among elected officials and in the NDP, isn't there?
Of course there is....and that's why you shouldn't jump to conclusions that just because someone is Jewish and feels some "affiliation" with Israel - that means "Israel right or wrong". For example, i have a close friend who is an ardent socialist, but who has lived off and on in Israel and has a strong attachment to the place. You might even call her a Zionist. She also supports Peace Now and the Meretz party, wants the occupation to end pronto and wants Jerusalem to be an international city under UN control. Her attitude towards Netanyahu is comparable to her contemptuous attitude towards Stephen Harper. I think that people like her should be welcomed with open arms as opposed to slamming a door in her face.
You sound like some of the pro-Israel fanatics I meet who think that the extent to which a Canadian politician is pro-Israel is the one and only issue of any consequence.
Just as the NDP would not run a candidate who was anti-abortion, I work towards a party that does not run candidates who support apartheid.
The NDP does run candidates who are anti-abortion. I can think of two elected NDP politicians, one provincially and one federally, just off the top of my head.
