Thomas Mulcair, Parte Deux

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

Erik Redburn wrote:

At worst, Libby was in-cautious in her choice of words; Mulcair was consciously pandering to the worst elements in society and betraying the very essence of what it means to be a New Democrat.  Or supposed to. 

You would never see Libby Davies agree with this- even in private. She's just not your martyr. Doesnt that matter?

Erik Redburn wrote:

 Please don't assume that you can just attack a faithful emplyee one day then point to their showing up again at the office as a sign that they appreciate your attitude.

There is nothing to this construct- the pained Libby having nothing to do but give up or painfully 'show up at work'. Not even a grain of truth.

I find it kind of sad people want to beleive in this sort of thing.

Erik Redburn

Excuse me Ken, you are not in a position to speak for Libby either and you entirely miss my point as well.   I was being called a hypocrite on the most hypocritical grounds, that I was somehow Dissing Libby too.  Then I was called stupid and clueless -again.  Then I was called an egotist for daring to ask others to back their accusations up.  One thing in the entire exchange entirely absent was the remotest attempt o address my comments, so OC I supplied a few extranbeous insults myself just to see if that could spur something useful.   Terribly unfair of me I know.  I've decided to make an issue o this again tomorrow or the next, as this kind of behviour here has gotten downright neurotic and whether any of you see it or not dos the party more harm than good.  We're not a frat party.   My last bit of honest advice, start talking to more people outside your normal circles; the seeds of change always grow from the ground up and by the time they flower its everywhere.  Now I really want to get to bed myself, I'm going to be tired as it is. 

Erik Redburn

And since I couldn't settle down right away either, despite being such a frikkin genius, I decided to find Pogge's contribution again myself.  I think it explains OUR concern in the matter better than this old idiot savant could.  Now we have some content to think about again, thank you.

Pogge: 

Winston wrote:

I'm just wondering: what the f*ck does the Palestinian conflict have to do with the Federal Canadian political scene anyway?

Ask Irwin Cotler. Or Jason Kenney, Scott Reid or any of the other MPs who are members of the CPCCA. They're the ones who feel it's acceptable to use their status as elected officials to promote an organization that most certainly is not parliamentary but benefits from the fraudulent appearance that it is. Ask these elected officials who have less interest in standing up for the rights of all of their own constituents to express their opinions than in using the position we've given them to intimidate some of us into silence in an effort to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions.

Canadian MPs turned this into a Canadian issue. So did Tom Mulcair with his attendance at the recent meeting of the international parent organization of the CPCCA and his willingness to throw the deputy leader of his own party under the bus in defence of that same foreign government. Ask your question of Mulcair because he's now on board with the rest of them who have turned this into a Canadian political issue.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

I know I posted this in the other thread, but to be fair, I think we need to look at people's views when the discussion is calm and not boiling over.

The June discussion of 'the Libby affair' is your idea of calm? Even in relation to this discussion?

 

Further wondering. This I have taken from a post just before the thread was closed, because I was bad: 

Unionist wrote:
If you were a public figure of the NDP, and you condemned Libby Davies as Mulcair did, and you said that anti-Zionism was a cover for anti-semitism, I would not vote for you. But you could do all those same things, being Ken, and I would not condemn you. What do you find incomprehensible, or unduly subtle, about the distinction I'm making?

That is addressed to me, if I did all the things that Mulcair did.

What is definitely said is that if it was me, not Mulcair, I would not be condemned. [Presumably tempered because of what you know about me.]

But I was wondering if you were saying you do not condemn Mulcair?

KenS

Erik, I agree you were baited.

And neither of us can say for absolutely sure about Libby. But the account you and others have of martyred Libby is a stretch compared to the evidence we do have.

"Well, you know, she could REALLY be private feeling just about anything."

Sure.

And my main point is not at all about whether or how hard done by Libby is. I address that because there is so much mythology repeated.

But I did say- once you set that aside and chalk it up as an unresolved difference... would you ever see this kind of divisive continual rubbing of old wounds on the Right?

No, because just like us they've got work to do. They get on with it and do all of their's. We eat our own, and do less of our work.

oldgoat

Life, the universe, etc, you are baiting and engaging in personal attacks  Erik Redburn you are being baited and engaging in personal attacks.  If when I come back later today you are still doing this there will be brief time outs.  Probably a self imposed break makes sense.

 

Unionist, you are roiling the waters.  Please stop.

Slumberjack

You're right OG.  Perhaps it is high time to start voting for the communists.

Life, the unive...

sorry oldgoat, but you really need to go back a thread to see where the baiting really started, such as calling what people posted stupid.

That said I still am left cold by Mulcair, but feel a little bit of intellectual honesty would be nice.  I've yet to see any from the usual suspects.  If Davies herself has made it clear by her actions that their suppositions about her are at best false then continuing to harp about it post after post is a bit rich.  Requesting some evidence of supposition is not the same as supporting someone, although that seems lost on people around here.  I'm not an NDP member, but it sure would be nice to actually see some well-rounded discussion instead of constant purity tests and the constant attacks and baiting of those who reject them

But whatever, as you were.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 

post removed.... Not sure how I managed to post this in this thread.  My apologies....

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I know I posted this in the other thread, but to be fair, I think we need to look at people's views when the discussion is calm and not boiling over.

The June discussion of 'the Libby affair' is your idea of calm? Even in relation to this discussion?

Yes, Ken. Read that first thread. Everyone was defending Libby. Everyone agreed Mulcair was out of line. The only differences of opinion were about where Layton stood, because he apologized to the Israeli ambassador. In those days - and until that very moment - I was defending and promoting Mulcair as a potential leader of the party, notwithstanding his personal opinions about Israel.

Quote:

What is definitely said is that if it was me, not Mulcair, I would not be condemned. [Presumably tempered because of what you know about me.]

But I was wondering if you were saying you do not condemn Mulcair?

Do I really have to spell this out? All right. No, it has nothing to do with you, nor what I know about you. It's because Mulcair is Deputy Leader of the NDP. And you are just another shmo like me. When some fellow worker says "I think the the Israelis are right about Gaza" or "I think Jews control too much of the media/finance/Hollywood" or "I think this women's equality business has gone too far", I'll engage them in discussion, or ignore them, or change the subject and get back to some union matters... But if the president of my union says such things, I will condemn them (depending on context, etc.) the way I condemned Mulcair.

One more try: It's not because of your individual personality. It's because of your and Mulcair's relative positions, symbolic place, reputations, and the expectations the public has when you speak.

George Victor

Life, the die are loaded here, as you can see from this morning's in-depth post-mortem.  But for chrissake, stick around. Learn how to just "roil the waters," and escape censure.

oldgoat

That's a bit of passive aggressive roiling right there George.  Not helpful.  Cut it out.

Slumberjack

George Victor wrote:
Life, the die are loaded here,

And that's not all, I fear.

Life, the unive...

Unionist wrote:

I know I posted this in the other thread, but to be fair, I think we need to look at people's views when the discussion is calm and not boiling over. This was LTUE's very first take on the attack by Mulcair:

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/libby-davis-forced-apologi... excellent post from the original discussion in June:[/url]

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I have to think there is a little bit of really unsettling politics going on here too.  Muclair's over the top attack on Davies seems like the first shot in the leadership campaign to come at some undetermined point down the road.  The comments are pretty low.

I don't really have a problem with Layton's comments.  It was a mistake, if an inadvertant one, and Davies has taken the needed steps towards rectifying that.  I know those who don't like the NDP will use this in their typical line of attack, but both Layton AND Davies seem to have BOTH realized that Davies made a mistake in how she framed her answer to one question.   Seems to me that they worked together to fix it.  I doubt we will see any reduction of Davies' role in caucus.  (I hope I am not wrong on that)

As for calling for a boycott and so on, Davies speaks for a lot of NDP activists and NDP non-member voters like me on that issue, and if anyone is out of step with NDP membership it is Muclair.

Yah so what?  I still think that.  How does that have anything to do with what I have posted in these threads.  No one has disagreed that I can see that Libby Davies was treated badly by Thomas Mulcair.  You will notice I haven't said a single solitary thing about Mulcair in either of these threads.  What I find a bit rich is the way people are using this issue to further some other sort of agenda without taking any cues from Libby Davies herself.  I find that a bit sexist even, but that's just my opinion which I am free to have.  Davies has obviously made peace with it all.  She was never disciplined as folks, maybe even you, suggested she was going to be.  There was a bit of a dust up between caucus members and I still think Mulcair was on the wrong side of that.  But Libby Davies has shown through her actions that she strongly supports the NDP (and incidently that the NDP, including Layton strongly supports her by her remaining in her position) and that she is quite capable of putting aside whatever disagreements they might have on this issue and work with Mulcair on the bigger project of building a more progressive Canada.  And to do that through electoral politics.  But there are babblers who can't see past their own nose and reject this lesson from Libby Davies and hector those who happen to agree with her.

I am not an NDP member, but if I was it would take an awful lot for me to vote for Mulcair.  However, I think babblers have the right to believe that a single incident does not define a career or the sum total of a person's relative worth.  Yet when they try to do that they are called enemies of the Palestinians or similar nonsense and all kinds of other names.  If people wanted to post I don't like Mulcair because of X, but allowed others to say I like Mulcair because of Y notwithstanding X I would have no problem with it.  But that is NEVER, EVER what happens on babble.  And you my friend are one of the worse in that regard.  (and that's not a personal attack that is an observation)

Unionist

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Yah so what?  I still think that. 

And I still agree with you. It's possible that events will yet confirm your speculation at that time that it might be a shot fired in some future leadership race.

Quote:
What I find a bit rich is the way people are using this issue to further some other sort of agenda without taking any cues from Libby Davies herself.  I find that a bit sexist even, but that's just my opinion which I am free to have.  Davies has obviously made peace with it all. 

Here's my agenda: I'm Jewish, I'm Canadian, Israel is not and never will be my "homeland", I loathe the notion of a "Jewish state", I loathe the suppression of Palestinian national rights, I loathe the racist/ethnic/religious structure imposed by Zionists on the region, I hate their warmongering. When a Canadian politician, of any stripe, supports that pariah state, I condemn them - and all the more so when it's someone representing a party that should know better.

The attack on Libby, because Layton didn't leap to her defence, was a warning sign that criticizing Israel too vociferously, or even expressing a personal opinion (as Libby did about boycott, divestment and sanctions), will not be tolerated from any NDP spokesperson. That made it a huge political issue that went way beyond Libby.

I don't really care whether Libby has made peace with some individual attack on her. I never condemned Mulcair just because he was nasty to a fellow NDP Deputy Leader. I should have thought that much was obvious. This isn't about who supports Libby and who doesn't. It's about where the NDP, and indeed Canadian society, should take its stand on an issue of prime importance to me. If the issue isn't important to others, I guess it's just my job to try to convince people.

I wasn't looking for any excuse to attack Mulcair. I liked him. I supported him. I campaigned for him. If he showed the slightest sign of retracting what he has done, I'd return to his camp. Instead, he has gone much further (with his dirty comments suggesting that anti-zionism is a cover for anti-semitism).

 

She was never disciplined as folks, maybe even you suggested she was going to be.  There was a bit of a dust up between caucus members and I still think Mulcair was on the wrong side of that.  But Libby Davies has shown through her actions that she strongly supports the NDP (and incidently that the NDP, including Layton strongly supports her by her remaining in her position) and that she is quite capable of putting aside whatever disagreements they might have on this issue and work with Mulcair on the bigger project of building a more progressive Canada.  But there are babblers who can't see past their own nose and reject this lesson from Libby Davies.

Quote:
If people wanted to post I don't like Mulcair because of X, but allowed others to say I like Mulcair because of Y notwithstanding X I would have no problem with it.  But that is NEVER, EVER what happens on babble.  And you my friend are one of the worse in that regard.

You can carry on and on and on in that vein, but I am not going to attack you. Apparently even when I praise your words, you see that as an attack. All I can do is wish that you read my posts and refer to specific misbehaviour if you think I'm crossing the line. Otherwise, the conclusion I'll draw is that you may simply feel extremely frustrated and angry about the political positions I'm expressing, and you're resorting to personal comments instead of just dealing with the issue.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

I suspect most NDP members don't see it as a 'Davies or Mulcair' issue. 

I have a lot of respect for Libby Davies. I lived in her riding for awhile, and I was always amazed at the respect she commanded from across the political spectrum, and in the community at large.  All of that respect was well deserved.

I don't know Thomas Mulcair anywhere near as well as I know Libby Davies.  I didn't like his comments about Libby, I didn't think he needed to say them, and I didn't think they were politically necessasary or helpful.  I'm also closer to Libby's position on Palestine than I am to Mulcair's.

All that being said, I can't deny Mulcair's political skills demonstrated at other times. Just today in the paper, he completley eviserated a stupid Liberal attack on the NDP.

Quote:

"He wants the NDP, in the next 48 hours, to cancel a corporate tax reduction that they voted for and we voted against," Mulcair said. "Even in the world of Liberal hypocrisy, this one takes the cake.  I think Mr. Regan's been into the egg nog."

Perhaps today's example is just a small partisan skirmish, but it's an excellent example of the kind of quick wittedness that get's a political party's point across instead of ceeding ground to your opponents.

All of this is to say that I'm glad Mulcair is in Parliament and in the NDP.  He did one really stupid thing, but he's done many very good things too.  And even though he may not be sorry for that stupid thing - he still does a lot of good.  I believe on balance, a lot more good than bad.

Life, the unive...

You can carry on and on and on in that vein, but I am not going to attack you. Apparently even when I praise your words, you see that as an attack. All I can do is wish that you read my posts and refer to specific misbehaviour if you think I'm crossing the line. Otherwise, the conclusion I'll draw is that you may simply feel extremely frustrated and angry about the political positions I'm expressing, and you're resorting to personal comments instead of just dealing with the issue.

Great Spaghetti Monster you make me laugh sometimes. Do you ever read yourself. Please do and then get over yourself.

D V

Too often when I come to browse rabblebabble I flee, seeing it infected with over-the-top, even at times disgusting, Israel-obsession. It is refreshing to see several posters here speak to this obsession, in the context of political practicality, predominating Canadian attitudes, the missing of more appropriate targets in context, and so on.

But, for all that, I have to say that I was unexpectedly moved by something Unionist offered about himself, and it only accentuated my own feelings of hurt at how things have gone in Israel. I can't say that this inches me closer to his approach, from which I am very far indeed. But I appreciate his speaking from the heart. In this case, it seems the thread initiator should not be too perturbed that the Israel thing dominates here, as much does come out regarding the fit with "left" leadership of someone like Mulclair. On the issue that I have focused on energetically this past year-plus, the grave dangers to public and environmental health of wireless mania, Unionist on topic here has only made unhelpful comments. Now I only heard this, but from someone engaged right in the middle, that last March at a Parliamentary press conference (where a declaration I wrote was read and distributed), Mulclair was said to be supposed to attend. Same was said of Lib. Coderre. Neither did attend. Two Greens actually did stand with SEMO's Therrien that day. The BQ, which brought SEMO's petition to the Commons & more important initiated Health Committee hearings at the time, stayed aloof.

So, assuming there was something to a Mulclair attempt to be associated with this issue, that is of interest to me. Does it reflect his experience as Ministre du Développement durable de l'Environnement et des Parcs? His awareness of the political waves the anti-cell-mast issue was making in Quebec, to the extent that the BQ actually engaged? His bravery in risking a go against powerful interests? All of that & more? If he with these attributes would dominate in the federal NDP, I could be moved to vote for them. I didn't follow the Mulclair vs. Davies thing, but if he stood up to more self-destructive over-the-top under-informed anti-Israel talk, good for him. I remember Layton was bitten early on in his leadership for daring to show some attraction to Israel.

Interesting that both Unionist & I would be drawn to vote BQ in the context (but I am in York Centre, alas) -- I don't care all that much what the parties say about Israel in distant Canada (but I do not undersestimate its international significance; and I do feel the Cons. are almost totally odious), and we'd be coming at this meeting of votes -- not minds -- from very different angles. So this time the Israel-obsession actually helped me assess things re NDP & Mulclair in an interesting light.

 

Unionist

D V, it doesn't matter what anyone says about Israel. What matters is when they attack Canadians as "anti-semites" or whatever for criticizing Israeli policies. It's about freedom of speech and conscience in this country. I'm sure you're capable of seeing the difference.

 

Fidel

What do you mean by "this country"? Our stooges have been pawning it off to the Yanquis bit by bit. It won't be long before we're all speaking American. Freely, of course.

oldgoat

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

You can carry on and on and on in that vein, but I am not going to attack you. Apparently even when I praise your words, you see that as an attack. All I can do is wish that you read my posts and refer to specific misbehaviour if you think I'm crossing the line. Otherwise, the conclusion I'll draw is that you may simply feel extremely frustrated and angry about the political positions I'm expressing, and you're resorting to personal comments instead of just dealing with the issue.

Great Spaghetti Monster you make me laugh sometimes. Do you ever read yourself. Please do and then get over yourself.

 

Oh fer Christ sake.  That's just the sort of mid-grade personal attack that keeps the toxins flowing, and just the sort of thing I warned you about this morning.  The great temptation before me is to suspend your account 'til the 5th, when I'm officially off duty, but lets try a (roughly) 48 hour cooling off. 

 

uh..given the weekend I anticipate, if I forget about you feel free to email me.

KenS

Unionist, post # 65 is a disengenuous "response".

"You can carry on in that vein, but I'm not going to attack you". Sheesh.

Life "carrying on" in that vein, was the simple observation that you hector us over the Libby affair. Over and over again.

Apparently you think that how deeply you feel over the issue- rightfully so- warrants you hectoring endlessly... which is just not acceptable.

Of course you dont think its hectoring, and we'll have to agree to disagree about that. And of course you think its the necssary 'clarification' of a political position. Which you have to keep 'clarifying'.

But Happy New Year.

 

George Victor

Happy New Year my arse.

Another injustice has been carried out here.

KenS

Well, if you need it George, I'll oblige....

Happy New Year to your Arse, George!

Wink

Pogo Pogo's picture

I don't know anyone who doesn't hold views that are inconsistent other views they hold. I don't hold it against politicians for not being ideologially consistent as long as they are there on the most important issues.  For a country like Canada with limited influence, foreign policy is minimally important.

I know little of Muclair, and I am leery of buying into people who jump from party to party, but if he ever ran for leader it would be his stances on issues he is in a position to influence that would matter to me.

George Victor

KenS wrote:

Well, if you need it George, I'll oblige....

Happy New Year to your Arse, George!

Wink

...get thee behind me Satan...no, I will absolutely NOT post that, and that's final...Laughing

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pogo wrote:

I don't know anyone who doesn't hold views that are inconsistent other views they hold. I don't hold it against politicians for not being ideologially consistent as long as they are there on the most important issues.  For a country like Canada with limited influence, foreign policy is minimally important.

I know little of Muclair, and I am leery of buying into people who jump from party to party, but if he ever ran for leader it would be his stances on issues he is in a position to influence that would matter to me.

And for me it is the opposite.  We cannot built a freer more just society if we become ever more dependent on free trade and global imperialism.  Those are the defining political issues of our age.  And the fact that Canada's influence is getting less and less in reverse proportion to its becoming a client state is important to me.  A security perimeter that allows US law enforcement agents to operate in Canada means something to me. I have no idea how many other Canadians share that particular viewpoint but I know I am not alone.  

Building a coalition for electoral success means you have to take my issues seriously or you will not get the same level of support from me. Any potential leader who does not speak to our growing loss of sovereignty would not get my support.  I don't have a clue what Mulcair thinks about many of these things because he chooses to spend his sound bite time on other issues.

Pogo Pogo's picture

We are opposite.  Canadian foreign policy doesn't even make my top ten.  To put such a focus on foreign policy is to diminish the focus from where it should be.  We have far too many people living in the streets, far too many on the verge of homeleness.  Too many people are living outside the community.  That is were we should be focussed.  It is a shame that Libby Davies is mentioned more in regards to the Middle East than regarding her work on affordable housing. 

KenS

You mean, mentioned here, I presume.

Since that is not generally the case, either in the wide community, or among progressives in general.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Yes, I don't think the focus is so twisted elsewhere.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

You mean, mentioned here, I presume.

Since that is not generally the case, either in the wide community, or among progressives in general.

Have you forgotten that no one here - no one - mentioned Libby's views on foreign affairs - or Mulcair's - before he went ape-shit publicly, and Layton apologized to the Israeli ambassador?

Why didn't Mulcair just shut the fuck up (or express his views privately)? And why did Layton apologize? Couldn't he have said: "Wait a sec, Libby isn't our foreign policy critic, plus she's Deputy Leader, plus she has more accomplishments to her name than ten others, plus she herself made a slip-up and apologized?"

And perhaps you missed the fact that no one here kept "hectoring" (a really sweet word, Ken) about this issue SINCE JUNE. It was revived by this talk of Mulcair becoming leader, and the report on his dirty comments about anti-zionism equating to anti-semitism.

So Pogo, Ken, et al, if Mulcair would keep what you delicately call his "foreign policy" opinions to himself (but what is in actual fact, his B'nai Brith-style opinion that dissent should be crushed), no one would know or care. And I'd still be voting and campaigning for him.

So ask yourselves - or ask him - why he keeps raising these issues which don't even rate in Pogo's top ten?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pogo wrote:

We are opposite.  Canadian foreign policy doesn't even make my top ten.  To put such a focus on foreign policy is to diminish the focus from where it should be.  We have far too many people living in the streets, far too many on the verge of homeleness.  Too many people are living outside the community.  That is were we should be focussed.  It is a shame that Libby Davies is mentioned more in regards to the Middle East than regarding her work on affordable housing. 

IMO If imperialism does not come into your analysis of why we have so many homeless then your solutions are not likely to work. I don't think I ever said it should be the only issues just that if you want to build a left electoral coalition then the party better not ignore the elephant next door.

Libby was attending a rally when the Israeli comments occurred. I was at that rally and it was a fun and festive family friendly march through the streets that I am sure raised awareness amongst many of the onlookers. Most NDP members would not spend their time at such events.  IMO the fact that Libby is outspoken on issues and marches in the street with activists on a wide range of issues is why hers is considered one of the safest NDP seats in the country. My MP often marches in the streets as well but then they both did it before they were elected.

Libby was treated with disrespect for standing with the oppressed in an area of the world where our government is a complicit ally in that oppression.  Nothing Libby said was anti-Semitic and that is all the party should have said on the issue.  Barking to the right wing presses whistles doesn't impress me and that is what I saw Mulcair doing.  

KenS

I maintain that its still hectoring to bring it back now Unionist. Because people dared to praise Mulcair.

Couldnt let that go by, eh?

Like I said, adults would agree to disagree, and move on. But we're not allowed to praise Mulcair in public, without being reminded we were wrong and wrong headed. We disagree, and never will agree, with what happened and the implications. We only agree that Mulcair should not have donne it. You insist that is all that matters, and not punishing him is an egregious political affront. We disagree. And you wont let it go.

al-Qa'bong

psst.  Let it go, Ken.

KenS

To be clear

Unionist wrote:

Why didn't Mulcair just shut the fuck up (or express his views privately)?

On this there is agreement. 

Unionist wrote:

And why did Layton apologize? Couldn't he have said: "Wait a sec, Libby isn't our foreign policy critic, plus she's Deputy Leader, plus she has more accomplishments to her name than ten others, plus she herself made a slip-up and apologized?"

On the rest, which is all the previous discussion, and its reincarnation now, we fundamentally disagree. There is no common ground, and cannot be. Which is when we have to set it aside.

It is to be expected that if people are going to talk about Mulcair is leader, then you and others would express why you wont consider him. A reference to the dispute we all know about would suffice.

But that is never enough.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Actually Ken I thought this thread and the last one were about the possibility of Mulcair becoming the leader.  I know I am posting to say I don't think he is leadership material not to say he should not be reelected as an NDP MP.  You are allowed to praise him as many times as you like but it seems fair to me that others are allowed to highlight his flaws as many times as they like.  I wasn't keeping score so I don't think I can say who is hectoring and who is merely repeating ad nauseam but it seems you both keep repeating your positions.

So go ahead praise him but please stop complaining about others.

takeitslowly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TLiYrkdRHQ

 

 I made this video in June and I agree with Unionist. What Muclair did to Libby is just like when a fellow NDPer cheering on with the Harper party when they suggest the NDP leader should be renamed toTaliban Jack or if a fellow NDPer MP decided to agree with Jason Kennedy to keep George Galloway banned from entering Canada.

If our government is beholden to the polices of the Israelie government, than they are not paying attention to the interests of Canadians (spending billion of dollars and Canadian lives in Afghanistian is not in our interest), that is the issue we should be concerned about.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Here's part of the problem: Sometimes anti-Zionism IS used as a cover for anti-Semitism.  Therefore, even if speaking God's own truth about the Israel - Palestine question, progressives need to be cautious about their comments and about the possibility that their comments will be used either by anti-Semitic anti-Zionists as a means of "mainstreaming" their views or by pro-Zionist anti-Semites for their own nefarious purposes.

Libby's comments overall may or may not have been a problem if not for the error of confusing 1948 with 1968, but there you are.  And, of course, there are those on the uberZionist right who would spin even a mild criticism of the colour scheme at the Israeli embassy as an anti-Semitic outrage.

Mulclair's response was clearly over the top.  I'm inclined to wonder if part of it had to do with having narrowly won a riding with a high Jewish vote where (I'm making an assumption here) significant subset of voters would be very sensitive to any real or perceived criticism of Israel and for whom that sensitivity could be vote-determining.  IIRC, the three NDP MPs most often criticized for being too pro-Israel (Mulclair, P. Martin and former MP Wasylycia-Leis) are all from ridings with a relatively high concentration of Jewish voters.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

I maintain that its still hectoring to bring it back now Unionist. Because people dared to praise Mulcair.

Couldnt let that go by, eh?

In fairness, perhaps you missed where I myself "dared to praise Mulcair" [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/montreals-most-popular-daily-news... this month[/url]:

Unionist wrote:

Yup, that's my MP, Tom Mulcair, standing tall(est), next to Claudette Carbonneau, president of the CSN, Michel Arsenault, beleaguered president of the FTQ, and Raynald Leblanc, head of the locked-out journalists.

10,000 demonstrators marched in solidarity yesterday afternoon to support the journalists.

Isn't that strange? Doesn't fit your preconceived notions, does it? And perhaps you failed to notice that I returned to the attack against Mulcair because of his recent escalation of pro-Israeli and anti-free-speech grovelling.

It's just all so hard to figure out. Oh well. Let's just call it "hectoring" and move on.

 

George Victor

And still - despite many appeals - nobody is ready to tell us where Mulcair is at on the HOST of other issues, social and international, which would allow one to overlook this heinous crime...the one which an embarrased fellow MP could very well have filed away as a lesson in how not to trust the fourth estate.  

So the thread remains a gossip column led by a spiteful few.  Way to go!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

My intent was to broaden the discussion beyond the simple question of the man's position on a single issue.  Re-read my post.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The other thing you'd have to consider about Mulcair's response to the Libby Davies situation is, does this response give us a hint of how Mulcair might react in OTHER contentious or volatile situations?  Is it a hint of what the man's, well, character is like?

Does it suggest, perhaps, that Mulcair simply might have deeper issues of personal temperment to be wary about?

To me, that is something to think about if you're going to ponder the idea of Mulcair eventually being the leader of the NDP.  Party leadership DOES require the ability to keep a cool head in a crisis, or at least to be in control of your own emotions and instincts in public, particularly if you're leading a party in a minority parliament and have to keep that party AND YOURSELF ready to fight a general election at a moment's notice for the life of that parliament.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

My intent was to broaden the discussion beyond the simple question of the man's position on a single issue.  Re-read my post.

Your intent is irrelevant we know your true intentions.   Cool

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

And still - despite many appeals - nobody is ready to tell us where Mulcair is at on the HOST of other issues, social and international, ...

He's good on all those issues - environment, Afghanistan, economic issues, workers' issues (see his unabashed support for the locked-out Journal workers), social issues (on which he has a head-start, given his immersion in the Québec political scene and the generally superior social safety nets that are taken for granted here)... I think he's actually quite great. He also has the kind of charisma that Jack Layton can only dream about. And he's a Quebecker, which, as leader, would give him an incredible entry-point into people's consciousness and awareness here, that actually might break the ice that the NDP has never truly broken.

That's why I supported him, and boosted him on babble as a potential leader that might really galvanize some enthusiasm and lead the way to advances in a way that the tired old party elite cannot.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

George Victor wrote:

And still - despite many appeals - nobody is ready to tell us where Mulcair is at on the HOST of other issues, social and international, which would allow one to overlook this heinous crime.

 

Good idea I look forward to your links and quotes from him.  

KenS

For what it is worth, I didnt praise Mulcair. And said I would be unlikely to support him as leader.

Its the nature of the response to people who do raise it as a possibility that I take exception with.

I already said that I know you have praised and supported Mulcair, Unionist. And had I been asked, I would have said that I would expect that you still do- in the 'right place'. But if other people praise him- where and when they see fit- and not with the 'correct' limits on the scope of the praise and support... you hector.

And yes, now I hector you back.

Unionist

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/lucien-bouchard-%E2%80%9Cs... was some discussion showing Mulcair's extremely sensitive and accurate assessment of the dangers of discounting the sovereignty movement, in retort to Lucien Bouchard.

I said:

Unionist wrote:

Mulcair's retort to Bouchard's over-the-top attack on the PQ as being "radical" (in the sense of xenophobic) was valiant and accurate. Even more impressive and cogent, in my view, was this:

Quote:

«L'observation à l'effet que l'appui à l'indépendance est en étiage en ce moment, c'est un fait, on peut tous le constater, mais c'est la plus grave erreur qu'on peut faire en politique canadienne et québécoise que de décréter la mort de cette option et de cette vision», a dit M. Mulcair.


[my emphasis]

... Which brings us to Iggy! I don't know which Torontonian or Washingtonian is advising Ignatieff these days, but his comments were plain idiotic. Is it too late for them to get Dion back at the helm? Or Chrétien? I have no clue what he hopes to accomplish by this, but if he dreams of riding a wave of renewed federalist enthusiasm in Québec, he is politically as tone deaf as he has appeared to be this past year.

Back to Mulcair - he's gutsy, for a former Liberal. If the NDP learns to speak in this principled, firm, and diplomatic way, and stick to their guns on social and economic policy, they may yet cause angst for the Liberals and BQ in a few ridings.

George Victor

I come not to praise Ceasar, but to bury him...  er...

George Victor

Unionist wrote:

George Victor wrote:

And still - despite many appeals - nobody is ready to tell us where Mulcair is at on the HOST of other issues, social and international, ...

He's good on all those issues - environment, Afghanistan, economic issues, workers' issues (see his unabashed support for the locked-out Journal workers), social issues (on which he has a head-start, given his immersion in the Québec political scene and the generally superior social safety nets that are taken for granted here)... I think he's actually quite great. He also has the kind of charisma that Jack Layton can only dream about. And he's a Quebecker, which, as leader, would give him an incredible entry-point into people's consciousness and awareness here, that actually might break the ice that the NDP has never truly broken.

That's why I supported him, and boosted him on babble as a potential leader that might really galvanize some enthusiasm and lead the way to advances in a way that the tired old party elite cannot.

 

Thaks U.  Without TV, and living west of the Ottawa, I have only the sketchiest of ideas about him.  The Globe, of course, carries nothing about the NDP. And the local rags, less than nothing.

Am I missing a fuller reportage on Quebec here on Rabble? (I only have dialup).

Pogo Pogo's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

The other thing you'd have to consider about Mulcair's response to the Libby Davies situation is, does this response give us a hint of how Mulcair might react in OTHER contentious or volatile situations?  Is it a hint of what the man's, well, character is like?

Does it suggest, perhaps, that Mulcair simply might have deeper issues of personal temperment to be wary about?

I agree.  We don't need a leader that cannot work well with his team.

 

Pages

Topic locked