Robert has the details.
I am a little concerned that given the former nominee blogger’s excuse for the comments, that ever quoting something distasteful, even in mockery is always going to be twisted by people who have something against you. Then again, I’ve not in memory ever considered mocking anti-semites who accuse Jews of controlling the world economy in some giant conspiracy. Although I have possibly mocked other slurs for being ridiculous, and really would be disappointed if my party dumped me due to an assault of Small Dead Animals (who are far from innocent in saying outrageous things, but for them they are often serious).
–
There’ve been a disturbing number of bloggers commenting that May shouldn’t be in the debates because of [insert incorrect reason here]. Not surprisingly, a lot of them frequent Small Dead Animals, and aside from drinking Conservative kool-aid, they try to share the poison with as many bloggers as possible. When you encounter them, I hope you’ll point them to a place where they can pick up an education.
The CBC story here incorrectly lists the reason for why the Greens were excluded from past debates. I emailed and told them so. There are no set rules by the broadcast cartel, they just make rules up as they go! And that’s one of the many reasons why we won’t get electoral reform until the Green Party forms government.
==
Buckdog has a fabulous video clip of Jon Stewart tearing Republican professional blowhards a new blow hole. They say one thing in the first clip, then do the other in the next. Video is really hard to lie in, unless you’re a Republican blowhard, and then it’s second nature. The Stewart show doesn’t even have to write the comedy it provides, they just need to have a memory and video archive to find the “laughs”. It’d be funnier if those twerps weren’t the ones in charge of America’s nuclear arsenal and military right now.
==
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Eric | 05-Sep-08 at 9:18 am | Permalink
I’ve not in memory ever considered mocking anti-semites who accuse Jews of controlling the world economy in some giant conspiracy. Although I have possibly mocked other slurs for being ridiculous, and really would be disappointed if my party dumped me [..]
Disappointed? I would be outraged for being dumped!
Not because it comes from some right-wing blogger, but because the argument that “parroting anti-semitism remarks of others equals anti-semitism” doesn’t hold any water.
May also said this: “We condemn anti-Semitism and our members work to encourage respectful dialogue, diversity, peace and co-operation.”
What a bitch, how dare she? Encouraging diversity while she’s clearly intolerant of John Shavluk’s satirical comment? How’s that diversity working for you?
May obviously doesn’t have an understanding of satire, or any sense of humour, but if she proclaims that her party is about diversity, shouldn’t she practise what she preaches?
May’s refusal to sign these nominee papers for John Shavluk are about conformity, conformity with the Christian views of May and her religious gang. And conformity has little to do with diversity.
I want to give credit to May too; she has once again shown what her party is about: this party is pro-religion. Canada left KNOWS this, and today is a mere reminder.
But it’s also a reason for not trusting this party, because pro-religion is associated with right-wing views. By not standing up for John Shavluk, May identifies (if not aligns) herself and her party with the ideology of Canada’s right-wingers, such as Small Dead Animals. And right-wingers are diverse, I’m sure.
Ultimately, May will have to answer why “Jews are holier than seculars”, because if one can’t parrot the views “of others” who hold bigoted views on Jews, then who is there left to parrot?
saskboy | 05-Sep-08 at 9:47 am | Permalink
Eric, while you’re trying to make an argument for tolerance of dialogue, you could do better than to call May a “bitch”.
Eric | 05-Sep-08 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Saskboy, do you have problems with my intolerance for intolerance?
May’s intolerant views on the use of satire to express oneselve conflicts with her call for diversity. I’m sure you’ve got good reasons for ignoring “the beef” of my argument, just like May had her’s.
KKKate and May, they’re a nice bunch; happy now?
Zach Bell | 05-Sep-08 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
I happen to know this fellow as an acquaintance and as a Jew, i can tell you that the only person I consider to be anti semitic in this whole story as it broke in the media is Bernie farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
The CJC like other Jewish organizations presume to speak for all Jews and end up creating ethnic tension where it’s not needed. In saying that some one who is not enti semitic is in fact such is a disservice to all Jews. By playing this card so often and in such a trivial fashion, Farber and others like him belittle other Jews who may not (almost certainly do not) agree with him.
I know John Shavluk is not an anti-semite. I have never once gotten that impression from him and heck, I have come to find out that I live in a home he once owned here in Saskatoon.
I don’t think the green party thinks he is anti-semitic either however. The other thing I know about john is that he has a nasty temper and it can make him some unintended enemies. He becomes very involved in the arguments and soap operas of other minor political figures. I don’t think the greens dumped him for internet postings that they have known about for over a year.
I would postulate that John made himself look like a loose cannon in the eyes of some greens with some sway and either they convinced May of that or gave her a slanted analysis and convinced her that he really is an anti-semite.
Eric | 06-Sep-08 at 12:16 am | Permalink
The other thing I know about john is that he has a nasty temper and it can make him some unintended enemies. [..] I don’t think the greens dumped him for internet postings that they have known about for over a year. [...] I would postulate that John made himself look like a loose cannon in the eyes of some greens with some sway and either they convinced May of that or gave her a slanted analysis and convinced her that he really is an anti-semite.
This explanation sounds a lot more convincing for what happened than May’s own version of events.
Nevertheless, she’s the women who’s supposed to see through all backbench bickering. Instead she CHOSE to participate in it (analysis, what analysis?), mistaking satirical posts of one of her own fellow party member for anti-semitism. What’s even more stunning to me is her rationale for doing this: because the party encourages dialogue and cooperation; well WTF?
Saskboy, to get back to your comment, I DID better than call May a bitch, but you chose to ignore that part of the post and you seem to refrain from any further debate; too busy praying for May these days?
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 11:55 am | Permalink
No Eric, I’m just not going to be baited into debating with someone who’d use that kind of sexist language and then claim you had another point too.
==
Zach, I too think that some organizations, such as the one you mentioned, could do more to foster positive communication than to level condemnations before speaking with the accused.
Eric | 06-Sep-08 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
No Eric, I’m just not going to be baited into debating with someone who’d use that kind of sexist language
Saskboy, intollerance is thy name. You know just as well that “bitch” is about as sexist as “son of a bitch” is. It might not be the type of language that you would want to describe someone whose morals offend you, but does that mean you’d never want to converse with them anymore?
May and Saskboy, you preach for tolerance but understand so little of it.
I do feel sorry for you; it must be tough to have a level of sensitiveness that ssems to date back to 1811. how progressive!
But if you don’t want to converse with someone who uses a strong word appropriately (Wikipedia: Since the 1980s, the term “bitch” became more and more accepted and less offencive. After the word was widely used between rivals Krystle and Alexis on the drama Dynasty, it gained usage, in malicious contexts or otherwise, and is now very rarely censored on television broadcasts.), than that’s your loss.
But I clearly sense a conservative mannerism to only use this to dodge the argument, just like May did in her (he’s an anti-semite!) case; yes, the red herring.
If May doesn’t like the pot-head (Zach Bell), then why not say so? If you don’t like my argument, then why not say so?
It’s rhetorical question, Saskboy, so please don’t bother answering it. We all know where you’re at on this.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
As I already implied, I have better things to do than argue with you Eric, especially when you started off with agreeing with me, before deciding I’m against you because I pointed out you used inappropriate language.
Eric | 06-Sep-08 at 7:55 pm | Permalink
At no point did you mention that you agreed with me, Saskboy, on the contrary. And disappointment and outrage are not the same.
You kept ignoring my well intended message solely on the basis of a single “bitch”, but from a little research on the net I found out you’ve used these words yourself as well.
Calling me a troll is much easier than showing my point isn’t right. Maybe calling me a bitch would be easier yet?
If you are so extremely sensitive for the usage of the word “bitch”, then why in Gods name would you use the word yourself? It seems that intolerance isn’t your only problem here, but you’re also inconsistent. (BTW, should I now inform Elizabeth about your blogpost too, or should we wait until KKKate does it? Or maybe you used it to parrot someone else?)
Wouldn’t it have made more sense to debate the real issue of your post, instead of continuing to stay off-topic due to inconsistent sensitivities on your side? Elizabeth May clearly made a judgement error (is this what we agree on?), and to have her cover that up with rhetoric of tolerance and cooperation is (for me personally) far more inappropriate than calling a person a bitch, regardless of what sex/gender she is.
So stop bitching about a single word and grow up, Saskboy. Apart from some inconsequential sensitivities you’ve got great qualities; by all means use them to everyone’s advantage.
Cheers.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
Eric, she has more important things to do than bicker on the Internet too. Funny that you picked a thread where I asked people to take something context, which you did not do here.
People who call female politicians “bitches” are the ones who need to grow up.
Eric | 06-Sep-08 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
If you had the ability to put my single use of the word bitch in context, we would actually have had a discussion. Too bad.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
“What a bitch, how dare she?”
There’s only one context for that, and that’s using a sexist slur to question her ability or judgment. I put it into context, asking you to refrain from using it, and you chose to go on about how that offended you. You got the discussion you provoked. Another time perhaps we can talk about the right of party leaders to determine their candidates, rightly or wrongly.
Eric | 06-Sep-08 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
Here’s the so-called slur:
“What a bitch, how dare she?”
and here’s the context:
Encouraging diversity while she’s clearly intolerant of John Shavluk’s satirical comment? How’s that diversity working for you?
May obviously doesn’t have an understanding of satire, or any sense of humour, but if she proclaims that her party is about diversity, shouldn’t she practise what she preaches?
May’s refusal to sign these nominee papers for John Shavluk are about conformity, conformity with the Christian views of May and her religious gang. And conformity has little to do with diversity.
I want to give credit to May too; she has once again shown what her party is about: this party is pro-religion. Canada left KNOWS this, and today is a mere reminder.
But it’s also a reason for not trusting this party, because pro-religion is associated with right-wing views. By not standing up for John Shavluk, May identifies (if not aligns) herself and her party with the ideology of Canada’s right-wingers, such as Small Dead Animals. And right-wingers are diverse, I’m sure.
Ultimately, May will have to answer why “Jews are holier than seculars”, because if one can’t parrot the views “of others” who hold bigoted views on Jews, then who is there left to parrot?
Perhaps the order of so-called slur and context bothers you?
In any case, I just got back from a birthday party of a friend. I kid you not, but you’ll never guess what happened on the street while walking back home. Some girls came out of a pub looking for their guys. Once they noticed their guys just left another pub, one of them jelled: “THERE you bitches are!”
You got the discussion you provoked.
No, I didn’t. You took one (sic) word, and completely disregarded the two-hundred-and-sixty-one word context. YOU got the discussion you wanted, likely for purposes similar to those of your holiness Elizabeth May. Red herrings, my friend, are conservative virtues.
Calling my comment sexist is of course much easier than having a real debate. Maybe calling me a sexist would be easier yet?
Saskboy | 06-Sep-08 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
It was, and is sexist. This isn’t also a debate about religion, yet you keep bringing it up.
Eric | 06-Sep-08 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
So you call me a sexist now?
Eric | 07-Sep-08 at 1:33 am | Permalink
And since you seem to want to debate the off-topic, please explain to me what you mean by “sexist”. You mean this and also this?
then proof it!
Proof that, with my usages of the word bitch, I intended to imply that BECAUSE Elizabeth May is female, she is therefore “less valuable” or “inferior” to males.
Over the last 5 years in Canada I’ve learned that North-Americans LOVE to pull the “he’s-a-sexist” card (no sexism implied here). But far too often it is used to bitch-slap (no sexism implied here, but pun intended) someone.
Social justice is my main drive for blogging; I’m all for equal rights for EVERYONE, for God’s sake I’m Dutch! But do I really need to succumb to MSM rules on political correctness in order to not be accused of sexism, specifically by a fellow progressive blogger?
I realize I sometimes use harsh/rude language to make my point. But I’m not a sexist, at least not by the general definition of the word. Perhaps if May was a male, I would have called her an asshole, but neither does it follow that therefore all men are assholes (or does it?).
How about being a bit less sensitive about the usage of the word bitch, Saskboy?
Saskboy | 12-Sep-08 at 12:40 am | Permalink
“But I’m not a sexist, at least not by the general definition of the word. Perhaps if May was a male, I would have called her an asshole,”
Sorry, by my definition, and most other peoples’, by determining insult based on her gender, you made a sexist insult.
Eric | 13-Sep-08 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
Then prove that I did that, SaskBoy, prove I determined insult based on her gender. Prove that I called her a bitch because she’s female.
You know you can’t, because I already told you that I based it on her inconsistent rhetoric.
Sure, you’re entitled to your own definition of sexist, but I’ll warn you; don’t ever call me a sexist on premises you can’t prove.
Saskboy | 13-Sep-08 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
I don’t have to prove it, you told me, remember?
“Perhaps if May was a male, I would have called her an asshole, but neither does it follow that therefore all men are assholes (or does it?).”
And it doesn’t have to follow that all men are assholes, just that if she were another gender you’d have perhaps used another insult.
I really doubt you’re a sexist, but you did make a crack that was. Live up to the mistake, and move on already?
I don’t think she tossed John under the bus because of her religion, I think she (and whoever else in the party that is afraid of blogs (see Buckdog incident)) decided he was a loose canon who would embarrass the party with easily twisted language, and make them appear too radical to attract mainstream votes.
I know whenever I see people debating religion online (especially middle eastern ones) I usually hightail it outta there because it’s typically a good way to get your head proverbially taken off by ranters. Most other Canadians don’t have the patience for the kind of fighting that John S. seems to take on online, and that’s what the root of his dismissal is (not some fear of secular nominees!).
Eric | 13-Sep-08 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
“And it doesn’t have to follow that all men are assholes, just that if she were another gender you’d have perhaps used another insult”
Perhaps I would, or perhaps I wouldn’t, but that doesn’t prove anything, Saskboy, and I believe that you’re too smart to not know the difference between proof and speculation; it simly does not follow that I chose bitch because May is female.
It’s logic 101, Saskboy (or is it Saskgirl?), so go play and piss off someone else with your false accusations of making sexist remarks.
I don’t think she tossed John under the bus because of her religion, I think she (and whoever else in the party that is afraid of blogs (see Buckdog incident)) decided he was a loose canon who would embarrass the party with easily twisted language, and make them appear too radical to attract mainstream votes.
So you support May when she says John’s remarks were anti-semitic? This is the same type of debate that we were having (and set-up for the same “red herring” purposes), Saskgirl, it’s about falsely accusing people for polical gain.
I’ll tell you what I would have done in John’s sitution; I would have taken the Mayniak to court on falsely accusing me (in public) of making anti-semitic remarks. And you know what? I would probably have won too.
Insulting someone with words like coward or bitch can be considered rude, but that’s about where it stays for most people. Labeling opponents with terms like sexist and anti-semite when they can’t be proven is pure slander. And you and your Greens better learn the difference.
But you’re right, you don’t have to prove or learn anything, here or anywhere else in the blogosphere; just keep praying, and all will be well. You guys are so fotunate.