Trudeau: "BDS movement has 'no place' on university campuses"; ANOTHER Bozo eruption...

89 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2015-03-14 01:49

Atlas

So Trudeau can add another notch in his "not ready to govern" belt.

His Tweet "The BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has no place on university campuses. As a McGill alumni, I'm disappointed." has gone viral for its stupidity and hyprocrisy.

OF COURSE free thought and debate are appropriate on university campuses. If non-violent, varied discourse isn't appropriate on university campuses - where is it to happen?

This from a man who just used a university to express HIS opinions, and from a leader who is trying to convince Canadians he is in favour of religious expression (I guess just not political expression).

Of course the latter is patently an attempt to deflect from his cowardly surrender on C-51.

Thje Cons aren't usually right on anything, but I think they just may have Trudeau junior pegged: he really, really, REALLY isn't ready...

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Regions:

Sat, 2015-03-14 03:10

NDPP

All of them fall on their knees to Israel. Here even more so than USA. Galloway was right: 'Canada has become little more than an embassy for Benjamin Netanyahu.'

Sat, 2015-03-14 08:14

josh

I don't know, sounds like he's ready to govern. Because that's what those who govern, at least in North America, say.

Sat, 2015-03-14 10:16

Unionist

Shocking. Just shocking. Can't imagine Tom Mulcair or Pat Martin or Paul Dewar or Cheri DiNovo ever saying anything like that. Glad we have such clear choices in politics.

Sat, 2015-03-14 10:48

Atlas

Nice try, Liberal apologists.

The issue is not whether certain politicians- of various parties - do not agree with the BDS movement or Israeil Apartheid Week. Many don't, and while I disagree, that is their right.

The issue is saying - as Trudeau just did - that these concepts have NO PLACE being discussed on university campusses!

That is a shocking statement for someone who is trying to bamboozle Canadians into thinking he cares about Charter rights.

Sorry, Liberals - your guy just messed up. BIG time...

Sat, 2015-03-14 10:48

Atlas

Nice try, Liberal apologists.

The issue is not whether certain politicians- of various parties - do not agree with the BDS movement or Israeil Apartheid Week. Many don't, and while I disagree, that is their right.

The issue is saying - as Trudeau just did - that these concepts have NO PLACE being discussed on university campusses!

That is a shocking statement for someone who is trying to bamboozle Canadians into thinking he cares about Charter rights.

Sorry, Liberals - your guy just messed up. BIG time...

Sat, 2015-03-14 12:16

Unionist

Atlas wrote:

Nice try, Liberal apologists. ...

Sorry, Liberals - your guy just messed up. BIG time...

You are truly offensive. You should try (hard, I know, it ain't easy) to deal with what people say. Try it, you'll learn.

You forget that not just DiNovo, but the entire NDP caucus (with her speaking on their behalf), voted in favour of a Conservative motion to condemn Israel Apartheid Week - on Ontario campuses, for your enlightenment.

And Mulcair, as deputy leader of the NDP, supported by Jack Layton, hounded and bullied Libby Davies into silence (lasting till today), saying that talk of boycotting Israel had no place in the NDP.

And Paul Dewar supported Harper's boycott of Durban 2, before the statement issued by him and Wayne Marston was pulled from the party website.

And Pat Martin was the NDP's official representative (along with the unlamented Judy Wasylycia-Leis) on the ultra-right ultra-Likudist CPCCA.

So before throwing the word "apologist" around, buy or borrow a mirror.

If you really believe in freedom of political debate, prove it. Condemn Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair when they try to shut down criticism of Israel. Don't check carefully to see which party is doing it first. Otherwise, people might be forgiven for considering your selective criticism to be hypocritical and unprincipled.

Sat, 2015-03-14 14:47

Pondering

Atlas wrote:

Nice try, Liberal apologists.

The issue is not whether certain politicians- of various parties - do not agree with the BDS movement or Israeil Apartheid Week. Many don't, and while I disagree, that is their right.

The issue is saying - as Trudeau just did - that these concepts have NO PLACE being discussed on university campusses!

That is a shocking statement for someone who is trying to bamboozle Canadians into thinking he cares about Charter rights.

Sorry, Liberals - your guy just messed up. BIG time...

Aside from Unionists comments which were right on target how do you define "messed up?" Said something you disagree with? A lot of politicians say things I vehemently disagree with but that doesn't mean they messed up.

Saying it has no place on campus is not the same thing as suggesting it be officially censored. I would say MRAs have no place on campus but I would want the students to shut it down not administration.

Sat, 2015-03-14 15:22

Debater

This is another stupid thread title. Grow up.

Nowhere did Trudeau say free speech should be prohibited and nowhere are there any threats to Charter rights.

He simply said that this type of demonstration is something he disagrees with.

Sat, 2015-03-14 15:30

#10

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

Atlas wrote:

Nice try, Liberal apologists. ...

Sorry, Liberals - your guy just messed up. BIG time...

You are truly offensive. You should try (hard, I know, it ain't easy) to deal with what people say. Try it, you'll learn.

You forget that not just DiNovo, but the entire NDP caucus (with her speaking on their behalf), voted in favour of a Conservative motion to condemn Israel Apartheid Week - on Ontario campuses, for your enlightenment.

And Mulcair, as deputy leader of the NDP, supported by Jack Layton, hounded and bullied Libby Davies into silence (lasting till today), saying that talk of boycotting Israel had no place in the NDP.

And Paul Dewar supported Harper's boycott of Durban 2, before the statement issued by him and Wayne Marston was pulled from the party website.

And Pat Martin was the NDP's official representative (along with the unlamented Judy Wasylycia-Leis) on the ultra-right ultra-Likudist CPCCA.

So before throwing the word "apologist" around, buy or borrow a mirror.

If you really believe in freedom of political debate, prove it. Condemn Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair when they try to shut down criticism of Israel. Don't check carefully to see which party is doing it first. Otherwise, people might be forgiven for considering your selective criticism to be hypocritical and unprincipled.

Excellent point,sir.

All parties are complicit from DC to Ottawa to London,Paris and Berlin.It's very sad that Ottawa are Netanyahoo's biggest cheeleaders.It doesn't matter who leads the government.

Sat, 2015-03-14 15:42

#11

Debater

Well, actually, until Harper came to power, Canada used to have a historically balanced position on the Israel/Palestine issue. It is only under Harper that Canada has become so unwaveringly pro-Israel.

The Liberal Party historically recognized Israel's right to exist but supported finding a balanced and peaceful process to find a two-state solution. But this was not enough for Harper & the Conservatives. Even Irwin Cotler has been criticized by the Conservatives as being anti-Israel!

A couple of years ago, Harper said he would stand up for Israel "whatever the cost". That's a rather surprising (eg. extreme) statement for a Canadian Prime Minister to make. What does it mean? I've never heard any Canadian PM or American President use such words.

Meanwhile, the Canadian press does not seem to have questioned Harper on why he has tried to make Canada's foreign policy nearly synonomous with Israel's.

Sat, 2015-03-14 17:38

#12

Atlas

Wow! The Liberal apologists seem unusually sensitive on this issue...

None of you are responding to the point (I can see why...).

The issue is NOT whether people from all parties may be weaker thanm you like on Palestine/Israel, or may have criticized (or even opposed) the BDS movement or Israel Apartheid Week.

The issue is that only TRUDEAU has said that they "have no place on Canadian campusses".

In truth, BDS and Israel Apartheid Weeks DO INDEED have a place on our campusses - and the huge number of people who are piling on Trudeau to make this point clearly agree.

Get it?

To clarify:

Opposing BDS or IAW isn't the issue. Saying they have no place on our universities is.

Trudeau screwed up, and his opportunistic pamdering has (like C-51) once again hurt him.

Sat, 2015-03-14 17:46

#13

Pondering

Atlas wrote:

To clarify:

Opposing BDS or IAW isn't the issue. Saying they have no place on our universities is.

Trudeau screwed up, and his opportunistic pamdering has (like C-51) once again hurt him.

To clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?

Sat, 2015-03-14 18:01

#14

Atlas

"o clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?" - Pondering...

Is that really the point? Trudeau being prepared to opposed free speech on university campuses because the issue being clamped down is an unpopular one?

Sat, 2015-03-14 18:37

#15

jjuares

Atlas wrote:

"o clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?" - Pondering...

Is that really the point? Trudeau being prepared to opposed free speech on university campuses because the issue being clamped down is an unpopular one?

Of course Atlas is correct on this one. There is a difference between criticizing a point of view and saying it has no place. The defence of Trudeau's words have been: 1. To misrepresent what Trudeau said (Debater) 2. Criticize the words of others (unionist) 3. Argue that it may be popular (Pondering). All are either irrelevant or misleading.

Sat, 2015-03-14 19:08

#16

Pondering

Atlas wrote:

To clarify:

Opposing BDS or IAW isn't the issue. Saying they have no place on our universities is.

Trudeau screwed up, and his opportunistic pamdering has (like C-51) once again hurt him.

Pondering wrote:
To clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?

Atlas wrote:

Is that really the point? Trudeau being prepared to opposed free speech on university campuses because the issue being clamped down is an unpopular one?

It seems to be the point you are trying to make. You said he screwed up and that it has hurt him "once again". I disagree with him but I don't see this hurting him in any way.

Sat, 2015-03-14 19:18

#17

Unionist

If you think I'm defending the anti-democratic ultra-Zionist repressive position of Trudeau, jjuares, you should invest in a pair of glasses and a dictionary.

And if anyone supports Mulcair's bullying of Libby Davies, DiNovo's condemnation of IAW, or the CPCCA - whose mission was to criminalize anti-Israel speech as "anti-Semitic" - then it shows how partisan politics can turn good progressive hearts and minds to shit.

Sat, 2015-03-14 19:20

#18

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

If you think I'm defending the anti-democratic ultra-Zionist repressive position of Trudeau, jjuares, you should invest in a pair of glasses and a dictionary.

And if anyone supports Mulcair's bullying of Libby Davies, DiNovo's condemnation of IAW, or the CPCCA - whose mission was to criminalize anti-Israel speech as "anti-Semitic" - then it shows how partisan politics can turn good progressive hearts and minds to shit.

Oh, your last sentence is so full of irony. It seems partisan politics aren't alone in that regard. Have a good weekend.

Sun, 2015-03-15 00:11

#19

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

From my standpoint, as a Jew, I think that Trudeau is out of line on this; he is simply pandering. The movement represents a group of people that feel that Israel's actions toward the Palestinain minority borders on "aprthied" like behaviour. I can say that as a Jew I am fed up with the Isrealis. They shoot first, and ask questions later. This is simply compeletely indefensible behaviour. I think that demagraphics are simply against the Israelis and that in time, even if Israel continues to exist, it won't in its present form. Of course its present form is no way like what Herzog envisioned and surely were he alive today he would be offended and dismayed. But to say that Trudeau's statement is somehow is defensible, is at least to me, incomprehensible. And to those of you who say Canadians don't care, you may be right. It depends what frame comes to dominate the minds of Canadians come election time. If you and your party are able to confuse Canadians with the old LPC bait-and-switch, you will be right. If however, Mulcair proves up to the challenge, 2015 is not going to be a lot of fun for you. As to those of you still bringing up Libby Davis, that has NOTHING to do with this thread. That is simply a deflection. There has been plenty of discussion on that issue. If you really feel the need to beat that horse again, go find the thread, and post in it to make it current. Lets keep our eye on the ball, please. Thanks. I say it again, Trudeau is PANDERING. It is indefesnsible, completely. Your defenseof Trudeau, tells me that you all apparently think, based on your comments, that anything he says is A-OK. Great.

Sun, 2015-03-15 01:20

#20

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

partisan politics can turn good progressive hearts and minds to shit.

Bingo! And the reality is since most were't truly much of either to begin with - it's even worse... to fascist shit. That's where we're at. If you look at the all-party support for Israeli Zionism, American imperialism, Ukrainian fascism, then you must conclude that our parliamentary parties have become simply northern neocon adjuncts with mere shades of liberal-left flavouring to keep the sheeple sheepling. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of them. Disgusting sellouts all.

Sun, 2015-03-15 09:09

#21

lagatta

I hate the term sheeple. It is most often used by libertarian rightists.

Arthur, I agree. BDS is a nonviolent means of supporting the Palestinian people and sanctioning the military and apartheid horror Israel has become. Not even a very pleasant place for Jewish Israelis, and a nightmare for Indigenous Palestinians. BDS has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitic slime.

Sun, 2015-03-15 09:19

#22

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

People seem to be incapable of existing without a Fuhrer.

Sun, 2015-03-15 11:14

#23

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I say it again, Trudeau is PANDERING. It is indefesnsible, completely. Your defenseof Trudeau, tells me that you all apparently think, based on your comments, that anything he says is A-OK. Great.

That's interesting. Even though I disagree with him I think Trudeau is being sincere.

Sun, 2015-03-15 11:27

#24

Pondering

Atlas wrote:

Nice try, Liberal apologists.

The issue is not whether certain politicians- of various parties - do not agree with the BDS movement or Israeil Apartheid Week. Many don't, and while I disagree, that is their right.

The issue is saying - as Trudeau just did - that these concepts have NO PLACE being discussed on university campusses!

That is a shocking statement for someone who is trying to bamboozle Canadians into thinking he cares about Charter rights.

Sorry, Liberals - your guy just messed up. BIG time...

I see you needed to change his words to condemn him. He didn't say the concepts have no place being DISCUSSED. That would be like saying you can't discuss the holocaust on campus. What he said was the movements themselves have no place on campus.

While I disagree there is a distinction between the two. Saying that something can't even be discussed is far more draconian than saying it should not be promoted.

Sun, 2015-03-15 11:30

#25

cassius

It's election time and Jewish votes and financial support are important. So Trudeau Jr. says he doesn't mind a debate about the niqab but a discussion about Israel's theft of Palestinian land and the creation of Apartheid on the West Bank and East Jerusalem is "disgusting." Worse a boycott. Oy vay! Mulcaire agrees. By the way, Mulcaire didn't bully Libby Davies. He offered her the post of deputy leader if she shut up about Israel and ambitious LIbby agreed.

Sun, 2015-03-15 11:39

#26

Pondering

cassius wrote:

It's election time and Jewish votes and financial support are important. So Trudeau Jr. says he doesn't mind a debate about the niqab but a discussion about Israel's theft of Palestinian land and the creation of Apartheid on the West Bank and East Jerusalem is "disgusting."

Do you have a link to a quote of Trudeau saying that or are you just making it up as you go along?

Sun, 2015-03-15 12:06

#27

Atlas

Pondering wrote:

Atlas wrote:

To clarify:

Opposing BDS or IAW isn't the issue. Saying they have no place on our universities is.

Trudeau screwed up, and his opportunistic pamdering has (like C-51) once again hurt him.

To clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?

Is it Pondering....or Pandering?!

Sun, 2015-03-15 12:49

#28

Pondering

Atlas wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Atlas wrote:

To clarify:

Opposing BDS or IAW isn't the issue. Saying they have no place on our universities is.

Trudeau screwed up, and his opportunistic pamdering has (like C-51) once again hurt him.

To clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?

Is it Pondering....or Pandering?!

It's called accuracy. it may be fun to rant like a 14 year old who has just discovered politics but it isn't particularly effective because exaggerations and inaccuracies undermine anything of significance you might have to say, although it does cover up not having anything of significance to say. That must be it.

Whether or not a person supports a political party (or leader) is separate from how that party or leader is performing. Hitler, for example, was an extremely successful leader even if he over-reached in the end.

Trudeau's tweet isn't having any negative fallout. His support of C-51 probably won't have any negative fallout either but it has more longterm potential to turn that way because many experts and mainstream papers have come out against it.

Mulcair's unequivocal support of Israel has more potential to harm him because his pool of potential supporters leans farther left than Trudeau's.

Analysis is affected by bias but if it's partisan it's just propaganda.

Sun, 2015-03-15 12:54

#29

Unionist

cassius wrote:

It's election time and Jewish votes and financial support are important.

Watch your stereotypes, please. Thank you.

Quote:
By the way, Mulcaire didn't bully Libby Davies. He offered her the post of deputy leader if she shut up about Israel and ambitious LIbby agreed.

Um, no, wrong. He bullied her in spring 2010. She had been deputy leader since 2007. All Mulcair did was not fire her when he became leader. And calling Libby "ambitious" is pretty rich. She capitulated, and was never heard from again on some of the key issues where she had played a leadership role in caucus.

Sun, 2015-03-15 20:50

#30

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I say it again, Trudeau is pandering. I don't have to prove anything. He's pandering. And I stand by two things I said, first of all. Libby Davies has NOTHING to do with this. Secondly, as a Jew, I think Isreal is acting in many ways like South Africa did under Aparthied. How this will turn out, who knows. But I am SICK AND TIRED of being expected as a Jew to ALWAYS go along with North American Likudniks who think Israel is infalible and that Palestinians are evil. I am sick and tired of it! I say it gain, Herzog (blessed be his memory) would hang his head if he were alive today. North American Jewwery seems to have fogotten every lesson of history except the one that says Jews are always right. I say bull. The BDS movement is very similar to that which arose in oppostion to South Africa; I was a kid then and I remember this. Israel better start being careful, or it will go the way of the dodo and Rhodesia. Who was Ian Smith again?

Sun, 2015-03-15 21:36

#31

Unionist

Perhaps someone could refer me to Mulcair's response to Trudeau's disgusting comment? I haven't been able to find it.

Sun, 2015-03-15 21:37

#32

ajaykumar

To be fair, Mulcair's position on Israel isn't different from Harper

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:25

#33

onlinediscountanvils

Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights McGill wrote:
We are unfortunately not surprised to see that leaders in our government have spoken out against the right of free speech that their “liberal” rhetoric advocates for. Freedom of speech is a core Canadian value that has been enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and perhaps much to politicians’ dismay, that does not only mean the protection of popular speech.

As a pro-Palestinian student group in Canada, it seems that our voices do not matter, even if we are advocating against injustices and violations of human rights that have already been condemned internationally.

Once again, Israel is being singled out with unconditional support from government officials. So why would Justin Trudeau even bat an eye at campus politics? Because the work we are doing is impactful enough to scare privileged authoritarian centrists who cater to a demographic not fully representative of Canadian citizens. And while we put in relentless effort to network with students and student groups by advocating inalienable human rights and speaking out against oppression and apartheid, the opposition has failed to win over students and has privileged the voices of external mayors and government officials to interfere with campus politics. This motion was drafted by a grassroots student organization with integrity and perseverance in dorm rooms and cafes, and will not be silenced by the opposition’s external endorsements and endowments. We will stand up for what is right. McGill took a stand and divested from South African apartheid in 1986 against the will of those in positions similar to that of Trudeau’s. This motion is no different.

The only way that we will be able to remove the intentional suppression of discussion around Palestine that scares spineless politicians such as Trudeau and others is to refuse to be sidelined by their attempts to harass students at one of Canada’s foremost universities.

[url=http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/canadian-students-rejec... students reject Justin Trudeau’s attack on Palestine activism, free speech[/url]

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:31

#34

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

This excessive ganging up on Mulcair by some in this thread is simply a deflection from the issue. The issue is that Trudeau will pander with people's rights if he thinks it'll get him votes. Trudeau is saying, whether intended or not, that some speech is OK, and other speech isn't. To anyone who says there's nothing to see here, read what he said. It doesn't take a PhD in English to read his remarks withing their context and figure out what he meant. All this cutesy, "he didn't say blah, blah, blah stuff", is simply that. cutesy commentary. This kind of commentary may seem to its originators here, "clever", but it isn't all that subtle to undestand.

As to Mulcair's postion, that isn't the issue. The issue is Trudeau's anti democratic reaction to the BDS movement. I again remind you of a country called "Rhodesia"; whatever did happen to Ian Smit? To follow Trudeau's logic, those who fought to over throw Smith should have kept their mouths closed as well.

I remind all of you defending Trudeau of what Niemoller said about "they came for x, but I wasn't x, so I didn't say anything". Keep it up, and you're going to be asking what happpened to the people who were supposed to speak up for you. If you can't see that, then you've learned nothing from the history of the 20th century, period!

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:50

#35

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Why would Trudeau get a boneheaded idea to tell students what they should demonstrate for? Is he trying to piss off the youth vote?

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:54

#36

Mr. Magoo

Who was Niemoller talking about, Arthur?

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:57

#37

onlinediscountanvils

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The issue is that Trudeau will pander with people's rights if he thinks it'll get him votes.

For me, the issue is that BDS and IAW are under attack from politicians of all stripes. Trudeau's comments are abhorrent, but to pretend that he's an exceptionally spineless politician when it comes to defending the right to criticize Israel is the real deflection.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I remind all of you defending Trudeau of what Niemoller said about "they came for x, but I wasn't x, so I didn't say anything".

So what's Mulcair saying in support of BDS and IAW?

Sun, 2015-03-15 23:07

#38

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Who was Niemoller talking about, Arthur?

Oh, aren't you clever. Are you trying to suggest you can't understand how applicable Niemoller's comments are to all of us?

Really cute. Yep, you're handle fits you. Get your perscription fixed.

Sun, 2015-03-15 23:15

#39

NorthReport

Interesting background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

Mon, 2015-03-16 04:00

#40

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

Oh, aren't you clever. Are you trying to suggest you can't understand how applicable Niemoller's comments are to all of us?

Really cute. Yep, you're handle fits you. Get your perscription fixed.

OK.

But who was Niemoller talking about?

Godwin got your tongue?

Mon, 2015-03-16 09:54

#41

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The issue is that Trudeau will pander with people's rights if he thinks it'll get him votes.

For me, the issue is that BDS and IAW are under attack from politicians of all stripes. Trudeau's comments are abhorrent, but to pretend that he's an exceptionally spineless politician when it comes to defending the right to criticize Israel is the real deflection.

Exactly.

Mon, 2015-03-16 10:13

#42

Unionist

In fairness, although Tom Mulcair hasn't criticized Trudeau's outburst, I haven't seen him say that "the BDS movement has no place on university campuses".

He only opposes discussion about BDS in the party:

Quote:
“No member of our caucus, whatever other title they have, is allowed to invent their own policy,” said Mr. Mulcair. “We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you’re personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I’m concerned, grossly unacceptable.”

Sorry for the deflection.

Mon, 2015-03-16 10:43

#43

voice of the damned

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Herzog (blessed be his memory)

Do you mean Herzl, the founder of Zionism?

Mon, 2015-03-16 10:51

#44

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

In fairness, although Tom Mulcair hasn't criticized Trudeau's outburst, I haven't seen him say that "the BDS movement has no place on university campuses".

Well, yes, but we can probably assume that if Mulcair doesn't think that the NDP should advocate BDS, he doesn't like anyone advocating it. NEXT..

Mon, 2015-03-16 10:52

#45

voice of the damned

Which might be a slightly more progressive position than Trudeau's, IF Trudeau meant that the BDS movement on campuses should be forcibly suppressed. But is that what he meant, or did he just mean that he doesn't think students should be doing that? Sometime we use the phrase "...has no place in..." just to mean that we don't like to see something in a particulr place, not that we want it banned(eg. "Slapstick antics have no place in a serious romantic film").

Mon, 2015-03-16 11:00

#46

NDPP

Speaking of McGill and BDS, this from 'The Lobby':

Press Release: CIJA Quebec Reacts, McGill Students Vote NO to Motion to Divest

http://www.cija.ca/centre-publications/media/cija-quebec-reacts-mcgill/

"Following today's vote at McGill university where students successfully voted against a motion to call on the board of Governors to divest from companies doing business in Israel, CIJA Quebec executive member Rabbi Reuben Poupko released the following statement..."

Mon, 2015-03-16 14:39

#47

MegB

Pondering wrote:

Whether or not a person supports a political party (or leader) is separate from how that party or leader is performing. Hitler, for example, was an extremely successful leader even if he over-reached in the end.

Seriously? He destroyed his country, murdered millions and offed himself in the end. Just how do you define 'success'? Over-reached? Really? I mean hey, if using Hitler as a model for successful leadership in support of Trudeau ... OMG ... again, really?

Mon, 2015-03-16 15:15

#48

ikosmos

Unionist wrote:
In fairness, although Tom Mulcair hasn't criticized Trudeau's outburst, I haven't seen him say that "the BDS movement has no place on university campuses".

He only opposes discussion about BDS in the party:

Quote:
“No member of our caucus, whatever other title they have, is allowed to invent their own policy,” said Mr. Mulcair. “We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you’re personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I’m concerned, grossly unacceptable.”

That's actually quite a vile, monstrous comment in its own right.

When the Palestinians finally got a chance to have a proper vote, seeing as the occupier (Israel) prevented that from happening for many years, and voted for Hamas in the majority in 2006, Israel responded with an economic blockade and a bombing campaign (2007-2008) against Gaza in response ... with the effusive blessings, and generous support, of Canada and the US Empire.

Israel is no democracy for those with an Israeli boot in their face in Palestine - occupied territory by any definition.

These politicians are all pretty vile and the only question is "Who is the most vile?"

Mon, 2015-03-16 20:46

#49

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Atlas wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Atlas wrote:

To clarify:

Opposing BDS or IAW isn't the issue. Saying they have no place on our universities is.

Trudeau screwed up, and his opportunistic pamdering has (like C-51) once again hurt him.

To clarify, what is your evidence that this is a negative for Trudeau? How do you know he hasn't garnered more support than he has lost?

Is it Pondering....or Pandering?!

It's called accuracy. it may be fun to rant like a 14 year old who has just discovered politics but it isn't particularly effective because exaggerations and inaccuracies undermine anything of significance you might have to say, although it does cover up not having anything of significance to say. That must be it.

Whether or not a person supports a political party (or leader) is separate from how that party or leader is performing. Hitler, for example, was an extremely successful leader even if he over-reached in the end.

Trudeau's tweet isn't having any negative fallout. His support of C-51 probably won't have any negative fallout either but it has more longterm potential to turn that way because many experts and mainstream papers have come out against it.

Mulcair's unequivocal support of Israel has more potential to harm him because his pool of potential supporters leans farther left than Trudeau's.

Analysis is affected by bias but if it's partisan it's just propaganda.

Oh the irony given the source. Oh right instead you will ignore when you are proven wrong and just continue spewing propaganda.

Mon, 2015-03-16 21:04

#50

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The issue is that Trudeau will pander with people's rights if he thinks it'll get him votes.

For me, the issue is that BDS and IAW are under attack from politicians of all stripes. Trudeau's comments are abhorrent, but to pretend that he's an exceptionally spineless politician when it comes to defending the right to criticize Israel is the real deflection.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I remind all of you defending Trudeau of what Niemoller said about "they came for x, but I wasn't x, so I didn't say anything".

So what's Mulcair saying in support of BDS and IAW?

Why does it matter? It doesn't. This thread is about the fact he thinks BDS advocates should shut up. It isn't hard to understand. You're deflecting.

Mon, 2015-03-16 21:05

#51

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Oh, aren't you clever. Are you trying to suggest you can't understand how applicable Niemoller's comments are to all of us?

Really cute. Yep, you're handle fits you. Get your perscription fixed.

OK.

But who was Niemoller talking about?

Godwin got your tongue?

You are so pompous. I'll say this much, sport, your handle suits you.