*
Mulcair withdraws NDP criticism of Harper's severing ties with Iran
Wed, 2012-09-12 11:51
#1
Mulcair withdraws NDP criticism of Harper's severing ties with Iran
Wed, 2012-09-12 11:54
#2
I felt this needed its own urgent thread. After the craven and cowardly support last year by the NDP of the onslaught on Libya, we are now facing a far more dangerous situation as regards Iran. Tom Mulcair and his caucus must be reminded, constantly, that there is supposed to be an "opposition" component to "Her Majesty's loyal opposition".
[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/11/ndp-backtracks-on-iran-comment]NDP backtracks on Iran comment[/url]
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair backed away from criticism his foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar made about the government's decision to close its embassy in Iran.
Dewar said Friday the move represented "bad diplomacy" and questioned its announcement from Russia, calling that a 'missed opportunity' to push president Vladimir Putin on the issue.
Speaking to the press Tuesday, Mulcair distanced himself from Dewar's comments and did not condemn cutting diplomatic ties with Iran.
Wed, 2012-09-12 12:02
#3
it was only a momentary lapse before remembering he was 'an ardent supporter of Israel in all instances and circumstances'...
Wed, 2012-09-12 12:05
#4
derrick
This is extremely serious. Canada is leading the charge that could lead to a catastropic new war in the Middle East, and the Official Opposition has a leader who won't condemn it... Has anyone seen a formal statement from the Liberals and/or Elizabeth May and the Greens?
Wed, 2012-09-12 12:07
#5
Is Her Majesty's Loyal Applause Section up in arms again? Didn't they recently weigh in as well on the urgency of having someone do something about Syria. As I recall it was all too reminiscent of their clapping seal routine where Libya was concerned.
Wed, 2012-09-12 12:15
#6
Wed, 2012-09-12 12:20
#7
Is Her Majesty's Loyal Applause Section up in arms again? Didn't they recently weigh in as well on the urgency of having someone do something about Syria. As I recall it was all too reminiscent of their clapping seal routine where Libya was concerned.
Yes, indeed - last February, the stalwart Hélène Laverdière "demanded" that Canada recall its ambassador from Syria. She had been uttering such calls, in fact, since last November if memory serves. They were dutifully reprinted on the NDP website, but since its recent embarrassing makeover, many of those links are broken. But Harper wasn't as warmongering then as the NDP would have liked:
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-rejects-calls-to-pul.... 6, 2012:] Harper rejects [NDP] calls to pull ambassador from Syria[/url]
The official Opposition wants Canada's ambassador recalled from Syria, but the government says he will stay in the besieged country to blast President Bashar Assad for his attacks on domestic dissenters.
NDP foreign affairs critic Helene Laverdiere urged the government to recall the envoy because she said it would send a strong message to Mr. Assad, who has waged a bloody 11-month crackdown on dissent in his country that has left thousands dead.
I guess Laverdière, who is a career foreign agent for Canada, must be happy that at least Harper got it right in the case of Iran.
Wed, 2012-09-12 12:33
#8
This is extremely serious. Canada is leading the charge that could lead to a catastropic new war in the Middle East, and the Official Opposition has a leader who won't condemn it... Has anyone seen a formal statement from the Liberals and/or Elizabeth May and the Greens?
Derrick...we don't actually have a government or an opposition representing the public interest. We haven't had either for many years running.
Wed, 2012-09-12 13:52
#9
Has the war started yet :p
I've been hearing about the West going to war with Iran forever. Everytime it never happens.
When Isreali assassins were caught with Canadian passports and we removed our Ambassador for a time in protest. Did this mean we were planning on invade Isreal? No.
Cutting diplomatic ties with a nation is the equivilant of flipping someone the bird and shooting them.
Mulcair has already stated he is against war with Iran.
People need to tone the parania down,a couple of notches.
Wed, 2012-09-12 14:11
#10
Wed, 2012-09-12 16:01
#11
People need to tone the parania down,a couple of notches.
? Did you mean perinea? Now we're expected to bleach [i]those[/i] too?!
Wed, 2012-09-12 17:52
#12
People need to tone the parania down,a couple of notches.? Did you mean perinea? Now we're expected to bleach [i]those[/i] too?!
I don't know what a perinea is.
Anyway word I got from a blog is cacus is divided on the issue and trying to work it out in via a process created by Jack. Mulcair is buying time while that is resolved.
I'm not really worried. Still while consenus is good, the lesson is sometimes a leader needs to make the choice her or himself.
Wed, 2012-09-12 18:00
#13
I feel very confident that the leader will make the choice her or himself.
Wed, 2012-09-12 18:27
#14
It appears that the NDP are to the right of the Globe & Mail on this issue. Shame on them.
People need to tone the parania down,a couple of notches.? Did you mean perinea? Now we're expected to bleach [i]those[/i] too?!
Teehee, I giggled at that.
Wed, 2012-09-12 22:57
#15
Aside from all the reasons cited above, there is also the factor that 22 Canadians are in prison in Iran, some on death row for blogging and other crimes. The removal of the Canadian embassy is going to mean that there is no chance for embassy officials to lobby on their behalf and check into their condition and less consideration given to any Canadian government statement having the slightest effect on what happens to these people. However, we already know from what has happened in other countries the Harper government does almost nothing to support Canadians in foreign countries, whether in prison, confined to an embassy or in Guantanamo, despite the fact that this is one of the roles of embassies.
Thu, 2012-09-13 06:03
#16
Those people in prison are probably Canadians of Iranian origin. Not exactly caucasian in other words. Unlike the person who ran into trouble in Mexico for money laundering. In that particular instance Jason Kenney dispatched himself to sort things out with the Mexicans.
Thu, 2012-09-13 08:30
#17
autoworker
Those people in prison are probably Canadians of Iranian origin. Not exactly caucasian in other words. Unlike the person who ran into trouble in Mexico for money laundering. In that particular instance Jason Kenney dispatched himself to sort things out with the Mexicans.
Iran doesn't recognize duel citizenship.
Thu, 2012-09-13 08:38
#18
Iran doesn't recognize duel citizenship.Those people in prison are probably Canadians of Iranian origin. Not exactly caucasian in other words. Unlike the person who ran into trouble in Mexico for money laundering. In that particular instance Jason Kenney dispatched himself to sort things out with the Mexicans.
Our government makes it [url=http://www.voyage.gc.ca/faq/dual-nationality_double-nationalite-eng]very easy[/url] for Canadians to check, before travelling, whether Iran considers them as citizens:
4. How can I find out if I am a citizen of another country?
Contact the foreign government office in Canada to determine your status.
WHOOPS, there are no longer any Iranian government offices in Canada. Sorry!
ETA: Actually, if you search on "Iran" on [url=http://w03.international.gc.ca/Protocol-Protocole/Missions.aspx?lang=eng... page[/url], you'll find that our government still hasn't told its webmaster that the embassy has been padlocked.
Thu, 2012-09-13 08:50
#19
Iran doesn't recognize duel citizenship.
What's relevant to the discussion here is which Canadian citizens the Canadian government recognizes and supports.
Thu, 2012-09-13 09:37
#20
autoworker
Iran doesn't recognize duel citizenship.What's relevant to the discussion here is which Canadian citizens the Canadian government recognizes and supports.
I thought the discussion was about Canada's relations (or lack thereof) with Iran. What does relations with Mexico have to do with it?
Thu, 2012-09-13 09:57
#21
It's ok, Slumberjack, I understood and agreed with your point. Mind you, I [i]wanted[/i] to understand it.
Thu, 2012-09-13 10:27
#22
It's pretty apalling to see support here for a regime in Iran that raped, tortured and murdered a Canadian woman, and currently has 3 Canadians sentenced to death for non-crimes. It murders Gay people and persecutes b'ahai and has religious police that beat women in the street for wearing clothes that are too "revealing."
I guess "progressive" values don't apply as long as the miscreants in question share an "anti-Imperialist" outlook, eh?
Mr. Mulcair's repsonse was intelligent and reasonable under the circumstances. The suggetion that he is acting on behalf of "Israeli interests" is offensive and smacks of anti-Semitism.
Thu, 2012-09-13 10:37
#23
Nobody here is supporting the Iranian régime. That is a ludicrous accusation. The point is a) precisely to be able to help Canadians - and other human beings, most of whom are simply Iranian citizens - who are tortured and killed by that government.
Why are you making the interests of the Israeli State - also a state that has been violating the rights of the Indigenous Palestinian people for over 60 years and cautioning settlements - aka land theft - a synonym for fighting anti-Semitism, as all anti-racists and progressives must.
Thu, 2012-09-13 10:44
#24
autoworker
If anyone has evidence of systemic racism at Foreign Affairs, please document and publish it, or start another thread (unless, of course, one wants to engage in tangential commentary that affirms idle speculation). Either is okay with me.
Thu, 2012-09-13 10:45
#25
The Iranian regime executed my nine year old son's Grandfather. I have no sympathy with them or with the cause of any theology.
Thu, 2012-09-13 11:01
#26
Anyway word I got from a blog is cacus is divided on the issue and trying to work it out in via a process created by Jack. Mulcair is buying time while that is resolved. I'm not really worried. Still while consenus is good, the lesson is sometimes a leader needs to make the choice her or himself.
you don't happen to have the blog link do you? i would like to know whether the division is between caucus members and the leader or if it is truly divided amongst itself.
i'm not too in the know 'bout politics but it seems to me a political party leader is much like a chairperson...i really don't want a unilateral leader of any party. we see how it is with Mr Harper and it ain't good.
Thu, 2012-09-13 11:02
#27
Another point that becomes implied by the event of Mulcair's thought convergence with the actions of the Harper government - in this latest example of mutual intent - is a silent agreement over the selective parameters used to determine which Canadian citizens merit consular assistance, and which ones do not. Not surprising either is the newly acquired habit of NDP supporters, who are now trotting out the ‘with us or against us’ line of reasoning from ten years ago, in an attempt to neutralize criticism of the party and its agenda.
Thu, 2012-09-13 11:16
#28
Anyway word I got from a blog is cacus is divided on the issue and trying to work it out in via a process created by Jack. Mulcair is buying time while that is resolved. I'm not really worried. Still while consenus is good, the lesson is sometimes a leader needs to make the choice her or himself.you don't happen to have the blog link do you? i would like to know whether the division is between caucus members and the leader or if it is truly divided amongst itself.
I'll bet [url=http://www.pogge.ca/archives/003678.shtml]this[/url] is what Brachina is talking about - see the comment by thereginamom.com. Sounds more like rumour than anything, but it's quite possibly true.
i'm not too in the know 'bout politics but it seems to me a political party leader is much like a chairperson...i really don't want a unilateral leader of any party. we see how it is with Mr Harper and it ain't good.
I wish it were so.
Thu, 2012-09-13 11:19
#29
Slumberjack, my Iranian friends are political refugees or the adult children of political refugees. They all have friends and family members who have been tortured or murdered.
Recognising a government does not mean endorsing its behaviour or ideology. It means being able to deal with it by means other than bombs.
The senior government officials in Iran all have bunkers, as all leaders of authoritarian states do, and probably exit plans - though I'm sure Leila Trabelsi (Mme Ben Ali) is not very happy in Saudi Arabia, after being able to strut her finery along the Mediterranean seaside.
Ordinary people like you and me will die if the "West" bombs Iran.
Should other countries be bombing Canada because of the Canadian government's ecocidal policies, or systemic racism against Indigenous peoples? Of course not.
Thu, 2012-09-13 11:57
#30
2,000,000 in Afghanistan in 40 years. Hundreds of thousands of innocents dead in iraq, at least tens of thousand killed in airstrikes in Libya. Hundreds dying in the streets regularly in Syria. This is the face of western intervention. More people die when NATO gets involved than would ever have been killed by their despotic and brutal rulers.
The Iranian Republic is a brutal dictatorship but going to war will kill far more innocent Iranians than the ayatollahs. I am sure that like all humans the typical Iranian just desires peace and not to be made expendable pawns in a great geopolitical game of Risk. The trade sanctions hurt the average Iranian more than its ruling elite. As well the best way to increase support for a murderous regime is to have a real and present foreign danger. In most countries the people turn as one to face a foreign invasion and put aside their differences with the government. As well in Iran they still have painful memories of the US backed Iraqi invasion that caused so much misery during the eight years of war.
I don't know who this message is meant for but it certainly is not a message of peace and hope top the people of Iran. Bellicose sabre rattling brings war and it appears that our politicos are all engaged in it.
Shame on the NDP.
Also I often wonder why an Iranian calling for the destruction of the State of Israel is an anti-Semitic racist but an Israeli calling for the destruction of the Iranian Republic is not an anti-Persian racist.
Personally I think the two states are equally obnoxious. They are both religious based systems and neither are democratic because of the inherent religious discrimination within their respective legal systems.
Validation error #1 today
Thu, 2012-09-13 12:07
#31
Not exactly like you and me Lagatta. It's clear that hundreds of thousands of deaths of ordinary people that have already occurred by western design in that region are of no account whatsoever within the prevailing collective mindset here.
ETA: We continue to observe on an annual basis the last few events where white people were collectively slaughtered. Their names are carved in stone monuments all across the country, and we're summoned to always remember them.
Thu, 2012-09-13 12:11
#32
autoworker
Another point that becomes implied by the event of Mulcair's thought convergence with the actions of the Harper government - in this latest example of mutual intent - is a silent agreement over the selective parameters used to determine which Canadian citizens merit consular assistance, and which ones do not. Not surprising either is the newly acquired habit of NDP supporters, who are now trotting out the ‘with us or against us’ line of reasoning from ten years ago, in an attempt to neutralize criticism of the party and its agenda.
Intent implies motive. What would be the mutual benefit of such convergence?
Thu, 2012-09-13 12:31
#33
Continued validation as a legitimate contender within the political apparatus, as determined by the media representing the corporate interest, which incidentally happens to be bullet number one on the job description of any contender worth their salt, representing corporate interests.
Thu, 2012-09-13 13:20
#34
autoworker
Continued validation as a legitimate contender within the political apparatus, as determined by the media representing the corporate interest, which incidentally happens to be bullet number one on the job description of any contender worth their salt, representing corporate interests.
So, are you saying that Mulcair's NDP/NPD are corporate lackeys?
Thu, 2012-09-13 14:08
#35
I think the Conservatives and Liberals have a pretty firm lock on the 'corporate lackey' merit badge. With never having formed the national government, instead we might consider the NDP as occupying the lower ranking of stooges in training. They seem to be progressing rather well all the same.
Thu, 2012-09-13 14:11
#36
What's the surprise? When it comes to the ME, Mulcair, Harper and Rae are joined at the hip. Stabbing a fellow NDP member in the back pales in comparison to toeing the neo-con line.
Thu, 2012-09-13 18:04
#37
@ unionist...tried several times to do a quote and kept getting a "validation error" message.
like the pogge blog tx. i see those comments by regina mom as her slapping up talking points to keep reaction down. but could be wrong.
Thu, 2012-09-13 19:46
#38
How is anyone surprised by this? Maybe this could have been avoid if during the leadership debates some serious questions against the candidates instead we let the clown show proceed big happy hugs and claps on the back.
Is there any difference between Harper and Mulcair and Iran?
Thu, 2012-09-13 20:11
#39
Is there any difference between Harper and Mulcair and Iran?
Sure there is. Unlike the first two, Iran can't do much harm to Canada.
Thu, 2012-09-13 20:16
#40
Is there any difference between Harper and Mulcair and Iran?Sure there is. Unlike the first two, Iran can't do much harm to Canada.
Ohh I am not sure, I figure both Harper and Mulcair can do a lot more damage to Canada.
Thu, 2012-09-13 20:27
#41
Is there any difference between Harper and Mulcair and Iran?Sure there is. Unlike the first two, Iran can't do much harm to Canada.
Ohh I am not sure, I figure both Harper and Mulcair can do a lot more damage to Canada.
Yes, that's what I said. That's one way they differ from Iran.
Thu, 2012-09-13 20:52
#42
Yes, the Iranian state inflicts great harm on its own people. Pretty much none on Canada, or any Canadian without ties to Iran.
I don't find Harper and Mulcair identical by any means in terms of domestic policy.
Thu, 2012-09-13 21:05
#43
Is anyone surprised by this?
I hate to say I told you so, but...well, no I don't, in this case. I told you so.
Thu, 2012-09-13 21:47
#44
Is anyone surprised by this?
I hate to say I told you so, but...well, no I don't, in this case. I told you so.
No you didn't tell us so, Michelle. You told us what we all know - that Mulcair bullied and betrayed Libby. And I strongly oppose the continuing nonsense that the Leader decides everything. It is the cowardice of the caucus, and the membership, which is to blame here - and the party whose very structure militates against debate and decision-making based on principle.
I told you so on [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/mulcair-and-israel-3?page=3#co... 12[/url], besides many other occasions. And I'm not happy to have been right:
But I think the likelihood that Mulcair would drag us into a war with Iran, or start throwing critics of Israel in jail, is close to zero. Maybe not as close to zero as Libby Davies. But only barely further from zero than some of the other candidates, and far enough from zero that I'd continue supporting the NDP if he were the leader.
I don't care if Mulcair is the leader or not. And I don't think Mulcair would drag us into war, or throw critics of Israel in jail.My concern is with a party that is insufficiently motivated to defend against those who would do both. Which is why I have scorned this ludicrous leadership race from the start, and suggested that a serious progressive political organization would do better discussing the direction of the party and the movement and the important issues of the day, no matter who they name as Supreme Leader.
But when people, wrapped up in the heat of the horse race, feel the need to cover up or lie to themselves about dangerous stands and tendencies, because they fear it might reflect badly on the horse they've placed money on - that is the death of any healthy movement, if it's not recognized and checked.
Thu, 2012-09-13 22:53
#45
Removed by member.
Fri, 2012-09-14 00:13
#46
I did a google search on this issue, and everything I came up with uses that Sun News media article as its primary source, with the exception of a [url=http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2012/09/11/mulcair-prend-ses-distances-... article[/url] which seems to be a translation of what was said in the Sun piece. Are we perhaps jumping to conclusions? What did Mulcair actually say aside from what was quoted? What questions was Mulcair asked? What is the basis for concluding that Mulcair supports Harper's move?
This is not necessarily to let Mulcair off the hook. It could very well be that he did what unionist alleged, and the NDP as a party appears to have subscribed to the tri-partite pro-imperialist foreign policy. I would certainly hope that more information about this comes up.
Fri, 2012-09-14 04:06
#47
Yes, the Iranian state inflicts great harm on its own people.
From what I can gather from pro-monarchy and post-revolution opinion, this is by no means a monolithic view among Iranians. Without exception it seems the prevailing view is that Iranian issues are for Iranians to determine. Across the board complaints about inflation or the economy in general are nuanced to reflect both external influences and domestic priorities. The matter of political oppression is generally examined through a relative historical lens as opposed to being seen as the sole purview of one regime or another. Some will point to Cuba under Battista and then under Castro during the subsequent decades of US embargo, and Central and South American nations run by US corporations backed by CIA maintenance operations in trying to determine exactly what it means to live under oppression, from a holistic perspective. In any event politically, it seemed as if the Iranians I've entered into discussion with have a peculiar immunity to amnesia that many North Americans lack. They forget nothing.
Fri, 2012-09-14 07:17
#48
All the Iranian progressive exiles I know here would agree with you wholeheartedly, critical though they are of the theocracy - and the monarchy before it. They most definitely insist that Iranian issues must be determined by Iranians.
And we must not forget that the current order has actually done a lot to improve education, health and standard of living for the masses - Iran has an admirable increase in young people getting access to university and advanced technical education, for example. Indeed, the student and youth protests are also signs of increased access to education for the masses.
Fri, 2012-09-14 10:28
#49
autoworker
If Mulcair should ever be seen talking to himself, not to worry, he's having a caucus meeting.
Fri, 2012-09-14 10:30
#50
For what it's worth, I was at a public meeting on Wednesday evening with two young NDP MPs from Quebec. They were both asked about Iran, and their answers echoed what Dewar was quoted as saying. There did not seem to be much waffling.
Excellent! If Mulcair was misquoted, or if he was correctly quoted but isn't trying to lay down the law for caucus, that's really important.
But where is the NDP's official response to this unprecedented severing of diplomatic relations? If the party website can quote Dewar [url=http://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-ndp-foreign-affairs-critic-paul-dewar-k... the loss of U.S. diplomats in Benghazi[/url], it can surely let Canadians know where the party stands on an issue (Iran) where Canada is actually involved?
Fri, 2012-09-14 11:22
#51
But where is the NDP's official response to this unprecedented severing of diplomatic relations?
From the same article:
"...we don't have the same information but it would appear that there might be some very solid information that would have led the government to that decision, so until we have that information it's hard to comment further."
I understand the nervousness, and this could be leading towards a consensus of bad decisionmaking. But at this point, all Mulcair is saying is that he's giving the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt, and that severing ties with Iran *may or may not* be based on classified intelligence that would meet a certain standard of quality.
Mulcair is neither condemning nor praising the move. He's withholding a decision until there's more information. It's hard to handle for most people who distrust this government, and know the move is probably based on complete bullshit. I think it's 100% reasonable to assume it's bullshit, like the Iraqi defector who insisted he saw chemical weapons.
But for a government-in-waiting, "until we have that information it's hard to comment further" is the right answer.