Rabble blog by Pierre Beaudet about Mulcair

Good point michelle. And probably thread drift to continue, but....

To show how far that can go... What michele is calling fundamentalists were a big part of our original activist base in my very rural constituency when the NDP went from being non-existant to winning the seat.

And part of my family are fundamentalists. The siblings my age see focusing on gay marriage and the other biggies as a distraction. They are a minority, but not at all uncommon. Among other things, none of those big social issues drives who they vote for. And the young generation- the nephews and nieces mostly remain evangelicals and biblical literalists but have no patience at all for 'redneck politics'.

This is more true in Canada, but US evengelicals and fundamentalists have also always had this diversity, and are getting more politicaly diverse... at the same time that right wing fundamentalism gets more nutty and dangerous.

Unionist wrote:

Are these the Mulcair supporters M. Beaudet had in mind? Or do "Orthodox" Jews have some secret Pope who instructs them all whom to vote for?

No, but certainly among Hasidic groups, the rebbe will instruct them on how to vote and their followers will vote in a massive bloc. In New York state, there are a couple of villages comprised almost exclusively of members of a certain Hasidic sect (Skver hasidim in New Square and Satmar Hasidim in Kiryas Joel) and a look at election results typically show one candidate getting virtually unanimous support from the community.

I'd also take issue with the classification of rabbi Shteinman and the Gerrer Rebbe as "pro-Zionist". Rav Shteinman is the #2 rabbi of the "Litvish" (non-Hasidic) ultra-orthodox and they are ideologically opposed to zionism and the newspaper he controls regularly denounces zionism. The article you linked to says that the key criticisms of him were that he supported professional training programs for the ultra-orthodox and was okay with them serving in an ultra-orthodox unit in the army.

Unionist wrote:

Yes - but my point (I'm sure you'll agree) is that there is not [b]one single[/b] authority for all orthodox, not even all Hassidic, Jews, contrary to Beaudet's ignorant insinuation that all orthodox Jews in Outremont (whoever he means by that) will support the same party or person.

Yes, I'd agree. Most of the Hasidim in Montreal belong to sects based in New York and I doubt that the rebbes get involved in local Quebec politics the way that they do in New York politics.

I think the only Hasidic group actually based in Quebec are the Tosher hasidim, who have their own small village outside Montreal but I don't even know if it's in the Outrement riding.

 My two questions still stand 1) how far? 2) If a babbler wrote those comments in Babble would they be considered to have violated babble policy?

I concur with you Unionist, although if one argues this wasn't far enough the issue of how far is enough is both specific to this situation as well as a meta question.

I agree with U. and Caissa, and its a relevant point even if it is not deemed to violate policy: that people at the drop of a hat attribute uncritical or relatively uncritical support of Israel as 'understandable, they are Jews you know." Or "they are worried about what the Jews in their riding will think of them."

I'm open to seeing it as in many cases laegely 'lazy thinking'. But that does not change that it is not OK, and people must be called on it.

That and attributing pragmatism to the importance of the 'Jewish vote'. To the degree that people are accounting for policticians not being able to forthrightly criticise Israel to the degree warranted and required by its behaviour.... it is the support for Israel in the general population- not the small slice of Jews- that politicians are reluctant to stir or bump into. That and their own degree of Zionist sympathies.

Unionist wrote:

autoworker wrote:

 

I don't know that hatred drives Beaudet, but apparently you do.

I didn't say hatred drives Beaudet - did I? I said it's obvious he hates Mulcair (whom he calls union-bashing, anti-nationalist, anti-French language, pro-free trade, disaster if he wins, etc.). This was in response to your question as to whether it's safe to say Beaudet isn't "comfortable" with Mulcair being the leader.

Quote:

I don't assume that you know more about the Quebec left than he does, but apparently you do.

I didn't say I knew anything about the Québec left, except that it's not monolithic and it didn't elect Beaudet as its spokesperson. He made grandiose statements on behalf of Québec's left, as well as the Canadian left. All I did was to ridicule his generalizations. I'm not sure how you're reading more into my post?

Quote:

Finally, I never mentioned Israel, but you have.

That last paragraph was not addressed to you, obviously, but to those who were re-starting a debate about Mulcair and Israel. Sorry if you misread that.

Thank you for responding, your points are well taken. My concern with this thread is not with comment by you, necessarily, but with some babblers' reactions to their perceived insinuations within Beaudet's article. When words such as hatred, racism and anti-Semitism are ascribed to individuals by subtextual analysis, I become increasingly uncomfortable, and bristle at my own interpretations, correct or otherwise. Anyway, I agree with subsequent posts which suggest that the blogger address his readers' comments in the appropriate forum. That said, I'd caution against 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by dismissing Beudet's critique entirely. Mulcair's receipt of donations from individuals, who are also associated with a major private equity concern, is noteworthy, and deserves greater scrutiny for reasons intrinsic to the nature of private capital.

 

Unionist wrote:

All the reader can gather from the offending sentence is that he is saying something really really bad about orthodox Jews in Outremont (whose number he vastly exaggerates), but doesn't want to spell out what it is. That's exactly why I opened this thread.

Obviously the reader can "gather" much more than that, by using a little imagination and hyperbole - this thread is a perfect example.

You're pissed off with Beaudet because he [b]didn't[/b] express any specific prejudice against, or make any racist generalizations about, what he calls the orthodox Jews of Outremont or wealthy francophones or immigrants in general.

But apparently just using the word "Jews" in a blog post on rabble is enough for you, Catchfire, and others to conclude that Beaudet is equating all Jews with Zionism, and to demand that he come and defend himself against the charge.

I tend to want to defend anyone on the left who is unfairly accused of anti-semitism. The accusations come often enough from the right wing. It's just hugely disappointing when leftists go out of their way to strain the interpretation of the words of other leftists in an effort to demonize them and (as some have done here) suggest that they be banished from Rabble forever.

I would require much clearer evidence that Beaudet is an anti-semite before hauling out the torches and pitchforks.