NDP leadership race #132

libby won't be pushed out of the party, no matter who's leader.  in the near impossible event that the ndp goes full new labour, even there we had examples of radical mps who were perfectly at home in the party - think george galloway before he went nuts with the saddam thing (and i don't think we'll see libby on state teevee in syria singing assad's praises).  and that's IF mulcair takes the party to the "center", which he won't.  people, the reason that these guys are kicking up this whole issue is that they want their campaigns to win.  it's that simple.  IF mulcair becomes leader, a year from now, i guarantee that we'll all be looking back on this realizing that it was all overblown.

and as for libby leaving caucus voluntarily to pursue an opportunity in bc, where would she run?  seems the ndp there already has all the potentially libby-friendly seats locked down.

20 years ago Mulcair used the word "sissy" in a hockey game? Really, we're discussing this?

I've evolved some in 20 years. I can believe Mulcair has, too.

DSloth wrote:

Hoodeet wrote:

I'm not one to tolerate homophobic, racist or sexist language, but in a hockey game, where testosterone rules and primitive behaviour is rampant, it's kind of silly, or at least unrealistic, IMO to expect players to think before they insult an opponent, and "sissy" is pretty tame compared to some other nasty words he could have uttered.  It would be another thing to yell it out loud or to use that language in conversation or in political debate.   :)

It's also a 17-year old second hand recollection of a comment that was probably originally in french. This is the very defintion of reaching for straws.

I agree.  Much worse has been said by Babblers on this very thread (hi josh ).  Given the context, this one's a stretch.

oh, and as for "sissy" (which mulcair would have said in french), in quebec, that could be anything from "tapette" (which is the homophobic term) to cocotte (female diminuative of the cock) to poule mouillée (a no-effort or a coward) to chou or cheri (intimate diminuatives used for children or loved ones that, when used on the pitch, are meant to infantilize the opponent).  there are all sorts of things he could have said, and in the context of a hockey game, the only bad one "tapette" would probably never have come up.  among adults, i've only heard that when people are close to fist-fights outside of bars and that.

ETA: yeah, this is such a stupid conversation.  people are just desperate to prove that mulcair isn't "one of us".  might have to force myself to take a few days off here.

I am commenting not on the anecdote, but the clamour of a few Mulcair supporters to defend his right to use a homophobic slur because it will a) get the NDP elected or b) because the context is okay. I have ceased caring about whether or not Mulcair, or any NDP candidate will be good for Canada. Moderating 200+ NDP leadership threads have taken care of that. The repeated insinuations that I somehow have a horse in this race are laughable.

Basically I think TheArchitect got it right in post # 46. Excellent post.

I believe Mulcair has attended Gay Pride in Montreal many times. He's voted many times for gay positive legistlation and he has even mention leaving the commonwealth over gay rights. If anyone thinks Mulcair is a homophobe they need to give thier head a shake.

Catchfire wrote:

I am commenting not on the anecdote, but the clamour of a few Mulcair supporters to defend his right to use a homophobic slur because it will a) get the NDP elected or b) because the context is okay. I have ceased caring about whether or not Mulcair, or any NDP candidate will be good for Canada. Moderating 200+ NDP leadership threads have taken care of that. The repeated insinuations that I somehow have a horse in this race are laughable.

Basically I think TheArchitect got it right in post # 46. Excellent post.

The entire premise of your position necessitates that: 1) the context in which the comments were made be removed from the discussion; and 2) the word "sissy" be considered homophobic.  The first is assinine since context is as key to communication (if not more so) as voice inflection / tone.  And the second is an extreme stretch.

Catchfire wrote:

You may feel the need to debate whether "sissy" is homphobic, but babble does not.

Your double-speak is mind-boggling.

Thanks for your comment, Sean and welcome back.

Sdm, what do you make of the comments about ribs? I don't think a homophobic comment is acceptable in any context, including, maybe even most importantly in traditionally macho arenas like sports. I am not talking about Mulcair's comment, I am talking about the clamouring defence of that comment which lacked utterly any anti-oppression analysis. It's depressing to see Canada's left wing party talk like this--especially from supporters of the frontrunner.

Sorry, Mucker but Sissy is not the kind of language that would be acceptable from someone who wants to lead the NDP. I really hope that he never said that and won't excuse it if he did. However, I am not prepared to convict him on a rumour coming out of a 17-year old translation but I want to be clear that it would not be acceptable in a hockey game or not if this word were used.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sorry, Mucker but Sissy is not the kind of language that would be acceptable from someone who wants to lead the NDP. I really hope that he never said that and won't excuse it if he did. However, I am not prepared to convict him on a rumour coming out of a 17-year old translation but I want to be clear that it would not be acceptable in a hockey game or not if this word were used.

The word "sissy" is so tame and benign that it's use today would be cause for the public humiliation of the insulter.  Again, I'll reiterate what I said before when the issue was brought to bare in an attempt to sewer Mulcair: these are the occasions that we bring truth to the NDP stereotype.  We can not live so far outside the mainstream on every single aspect of human life if we expect to get people living within that mainstream to support our party.

One hockey player calling another hockey player what amounts to "wimp" is definitely something that the mainstream would have absoltuely zero problem with, and our insistance that acts like this be deemed deplorable makes us look like fools...or dare I say it...[wimps].

everywhere seems sort of dicey, to be honest.  though, i think if he decides not to run in quebec (and not here, specifically) and if we take dewar's riding off the board (he's very popular there and i don't think it would be well-received in the riding if dewar were ushered out), i think probably the only riding that makes sense (bc is too far) is davenport.  the beaches riding is just too ripe for an upset that could well end topp's leadership before it begins in earnest.

to me, quebec is the only place where it makes sense.  despite how badly the ndp is doing right now, i don't see the leader losing a natural demographic riding.  plus a leadership by-election would be hard for the new bq leader to decline without appearing weak.  he's already ruled out asking one of his mps to step down (out of rightful fear of losing another seat to the ndp) and he'll not likely present against topp in a riding like jeanne-le ber or lasalle.  rosemont, for sure, but not somewhere that naturally favors the dippers.

Catchfire:

I didn't personally pick up on a mysoginistic code in eating ribs. In my social circle, ribs aren't a food that's associated with any particular gender or sexual preference. I read it the same way as I read some of the other comments mocking the significance of this "revelation". With some non-Mulcair people joining in the discussion, the comments aren't pro-Mulcair or pro-Homophobia, and more just shaking our heads at the sorry state of what passes for important issues during this leadership race.

On a left-wing site, we should be able to assume good faith, and resolve any ambiguity in someone's comments to believe that they're not homophobic/racist/sexist/etc. If we're genuinely concerned about these kinds of toxic beliefs, we should be able to discuss them using a restorative justice model, and minimize the use of statist models of censorship and punishment. Only if someone stubbornly clings to a toxic belief should moderators resort to more harsh warnings and "time outs".

Of course, that's just my opinion on moderator policy. I'm sure they're not paying you enough that you can actually engage, or encourage that engagement among the community. And it's certainly faster, easier, and cheaper to just hand out warnings and suspensions.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

... that being said, I just crossposted with Mucker, and he's chosen to keep digging.

And, if not "digging", how would you describe the post quoted in my last?

Mucker, do you know that sissy is a diminuitive of sister? You are, in fact, calling a man a woman if you call him a sissy. The implication being, of course, that women are weaker (which is why it's an insult). I thought that was commonly understood. If it's not, perhaps that explains some of the confusion.

@sdm: I agree that the rib comment was not gendered. However, it was meant to render toothless and irrelevant an established homophobic and misogynist slur. As if calling someone an oppressive name were the same as some other pointless complaint, like eating meat (which itself is offensive to vegetarians and vegans on this site, but whatever. Clearly this is futile ground).

I don't think the anecdote is pointless, but I also don't think it means Mulcair is homophobe. I don't think he is. I think it does support the ongoing characterization that he is an aggressive, at times bullying, individual with colleagues and peers. But I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting on how easily and quickly some Mulcair supporters supported his use of it, alleged or not.

ETA. Cross posted with Michelle.

Huh.  I had no idea that "sissy" came from "sister".  Learn something new every day.

algomafalcon wrote:

I have read that people are speculating that Brian might run in an Ontario riding (because they are "safer" ridings). If that happens, I am guessing it would most likely be a Toronto, Hamilton or Windsor seat. I can't see him running in a northern Ontario riding. 

It should have been Toronto Danforth. I know it's hindsight now, but it wasn't that long ago that it seemed simply good foresight. It would have demonstrated Topp's committment to electoral politics and, so long as he won, removed from the table the legitimate concern about leadership from outside the House. Of course it would have been challenging to contend both, but the effort would have rebounded to Topp's credit. I also believe the voters of T-D would have understood that his attention would be divided, and would have been more inclined to vote for a possible Leader of the Opposition than just an MP. And he could have still kept his committment to run in Quebec by promising to do so in 2015.

Poor judgement. Spectacularly poor, IMO.

Catchfire wrote:

You may feel the need to debate whether "sissy" is homphobic, but babble does not.

I for one value Babble being anti-oppression when it comes to language and conduct on here.  Often, due to either our own ignorance or in some cases relative priviledge, we fail to recognize when words are used to oppress particular individuals or groups of people.  I acknowledge that use of the word "sissy" is oppressive and I thank Catchfire for standing up and insisting that Babblers recognize it as such.

I've never thought of the word "sissy" being a derogatory term to mean feminine or gay.  I always thought of "sissy" as meaning someone, male or female, who whines or cries over very little, or who tattles over little things.  Not necessarily a female attribute at all.  Heck, look at soccer players.  (Oooooh!  yes, she went there!  catchfire's coming after her now!)  ;)

Anyhow, I'm open to the idea that sissy could be considered sexist or homphobic, I guess.  But if the standard that candidates have to meet now is whether they have used a mildly or even moderately offensive or oppressive term in the past two or three decades, then I think that's going to narrow the field to pretty much nobody. 

Trying to make hay against Mulcair with this is seriously reaching if you ask me.

Catchfire wrote:

@sdm: I agree that the rib comment was not gendered. However, it was meant to render toothless and irrelevant an established homophobic and misogynist slur. As if calling someone an oppressive name were the same as some other pointless complaint, like eating meat (which itself is offensive to vegetarians and vegans on this site, but whatever. Clearly this is futile ground).

I don't think the anecdote is pointless, but I also don't think it means Mulcair is homophobe. I don't think he is. I think it does support the ongoing characterization that he is an aggressive, at times bullying, individual with colleagues and peers. But I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting on how easily and quickly some Mulcair supporters supported his use of it, alleged or not.

ETA. Cross posted with Michelle.

I actually interpreted the rib comment as gender/sexuality-related.  In certain regions of North America, at least (I actually associate this more with parts of the United States then with Canada), ribs would be a food that might be associated with traditional heterosexual masculinity—perhaps in contrast with those "latte leftists" who probably prefer tofu and arugula.  (Remember that in the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, Republicans attacked Barack Obama for eating arugula.)

I certainly don't think that Mulcair is homophobic.  To suggest that he is, as far as I can tell, would be absurd.  I found the quote interesting not because it suggests that Mulcair hates women or gays but because it suggests that he sometimes may speak in a manner which suggests a certain insensitivity toward others.

I frankly can't imagine Jack Layton ever calling anyone a "sissy."

dictionary:

sissy

1846, "sister," extended form of sis (q.v.). Meaning "effeminate man" is recorded from 1887; the adj. in this sense is from 1891. Sissy bar is recorded from 1969.

adjective
noun
1. an effeminate boy or man.

2. a timid or cowardly person.

3. a little girl.

Origin:
1840–50, Americanism  in sense “sister”; 1885–90, Americanism for def. 1; sis  + y 2

TheArchitect wrote:

I frankly can't imagine Jack Layton ever calling anyone a "sissy."

Of course not. He was a saint. We shall never see his like again.

This will be my last contribution to the drift.

Clearly, I was mistaken with what I thought was a general understanding on what sissy means. So perhaps I shouldn't have pressed it as hard as I did. However, sometimes when I'm drunk or high and full of life I like to imagine babble as a place where the typical hierarchical and macho posturing doesn't or needn't exist, and so even if we don't know the misogynist etymological root of "sissy," we can at least agree that it's not the kind of dynamic we would want to defend in this space. Words like "wimp" and "crybaby" and "loser" which connote a very specific meaning after you've just checked an opposing hockey player to the ice. I wouldn't want to defend that dynamic in any situation, and in a perfect world, it wouldn't be defended on babble either.

If Mulcair is such a jerk why would we have to go so far back to get something he said through translation (accurate or not) to attack him with?

I am not condoning the word and have said it is unacceptable. But it is also unacceptable to even think of questioning a candidate based on 17-year old hear-say in translation. And would Mulcair make that comment today? Well I guess not or we wouldn't be reaching back 17 years for that one would we? You don't have to mount some defence for a stupid comment from that many years ago to say it really has no currency today. I think that's the point.

That said, ongoing concerns about Mulcair's personality/passion/manner persist. He has been asked the question many times and I think has made it clear that this is something he is working on-- at least to the extent that he can acknowledge the question. It is one of the things many of his supporters have considered before concluding -- on balance -- that he remains the best choice. It is also the reason others have chosen not to support him. Dredging up a 17-year-old comment does not help make a strong case against him, however.

On the issue of Topp not running in T-D, I cannot fault him for this. He did not want to be labelled a candidate from Ontario while trumpeting his Québec credentials and I see that point. Getting a seat seems to me to be the least of his problems if he becomes leader.

Catchfire wrote:

This will be my last contribution to the drift.

Clearly, I was mistaken with what I thought was a general understanding on what sissy means. So perhaps I shouldn't have pressed it as hard as I did. However, sometimes when I'm drunk or high and full of life I like to imagine babble as a place where the typical hierarchical and macho posturing doesn't or needn't exist, and so even if we don't know the misogynist etymological root of "sissy," we can at least agree that it's not the kind of dynamic we would want to defend in this space. Words like "wimp" and "crybaby" and "loser" which connote a very specific meaning after you've just checked an opposing hockey player to the ice. I wouldn't want to defend that dynamic in any situation, and in a perfect world, it wouldn't be defended on babble either.

I'll conclude as well, with this:

Anything said with the specific intention of demeaning another on the basis of their sex, sexuality, or position on the gender continuum is completely deplorable in any context (hockey rink or otherwise).  And I think that since intention is so hard to pin down, we need to approach these discussions with an open mind and assume that if someone really wanted to insult another on those aforementioned deplorable grounds, they would choose a word with a less ambiguous meaning.

My aggressive reaction to the suggestion that Mulcair may have been calling his opponent something more sinister than a wimp is no doubt a product of the recent attacks against him.  My initial knee-jerk essentially amounted to "What? The Broadbent thing failed, so now we're stretching 20 year old quotes into homophobia?"  There may have been a milder intention there as well, and for that reason I apologize.