babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Elizabeth may talks with Ottawa Citizen...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Elizabeth may talks with Ottawa Citizen...
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 27 January 2007 06:03 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...about Babble, the NDP, globalization, and other things.

here

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 January 2007 06:19 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
...about Babble, the NDP, globalization, and other things.

how nice, oh and side scroll

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 27 January 2007 06:24 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No sidescroll here. Do you have a tiny monitor, remind?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 27 January 2007 06:25 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please explain about the side scroll.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 January 2007 06:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. She says that she thinks Judy was put up to writing that letter or was pressured by someone to write it.

quote:
I think somebody put her up to it...I think somebody put a particular slant on what I said, contacted her and said "You've gotta do something," because she opened her letter with, "I'm sorry I haven't acted sooner but I was away." So I suspect that she had some pressure from somewhere to say something.

I don't know. Judy doesn't strike me as the type of person who can be pressured to make public declarations against her will. She also doesn't strike me as the kind of person who doesn't read stuff for herself first before responding publicly to it, as May seems to be implying.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 27 January 2007 06:34 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't get past the introductory page. Do you have to register?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 January 2007 06:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a direct link to the audio file of the interview. It'll probably take a couple of minutes to load.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 27 January 2007 06:38 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I didn't. I just clicked on the "Play Audio File" link.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 January 2007 06:40 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
No sidescroll here. Do you have a tiny monitor, remind?

Nope, 15" flat screen sidescroll was on TAT, I keep my fav's centre up though.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 January 2007 10:17 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
Please explain about the side scroll.
This thread will explain what you need to know.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 27 January 2007 10:31 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, I fixed it. Thanks for the link by the way.
For some reason the URL box wouldn't allow a cut and paste, but I imagine you could do it by hand by typing "[url]..."

From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 January 2007 10:49 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Judy doesn't strike me as the type of person who can be pressured to make public declarations against her will.

Judy made a perfectly innocent introductory apology, indicating she would have responded earlier but for not having read May's comments before or not having been around physically to respond to them.

May's interpretation of Judy's remark is a sinister one.

It throws a lot of light on May's own character.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 05:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly. Her opening seemed to me to be explaining why she's responding to comments of May's that were a couple of weeks old or more at that point. Her interpretation of that remark is simply illogical.

Maybe she really does think that Judy was put up to it, but, having no concrete reason to think so, was grasping at straws in order to get the idea out there. That's the only explanation I can think of for why she would come up with such an out there interpretation of that opening.

Personally, if those comments of May's had been about me, it wouldn't have been the "pressured by someone" thing that I would have found the most insulting, although that would annoy me. The thing I'd find most insulting is her implication that she relied on someone else to read May's remarks and interpret them for her, and wrote the letter based on someone else's spin.

No, I wouldn't like that at all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 January 2007 08:50 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sometime before she actually announced she was running for GP leader, I liked May. That was then, this is now. I think May has squandered a lot of goodwill that folks otherwise might have had for her. I doubt she'll get a seat for herself in the next election, although I suppose it's conceiveable that someone in the GP might win a seat or two.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 28 January 2007 08:58 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's also conceivable that California will collapse into the Pacific next year, but I'm not betting on either unless someone's offering insanely long odds.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:01 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
It's also conceivable that California will collapse into the Pacific next year, but I'm not betting on either unless someone's offering insanely long odds.

Well, if the Green Party were to promise that if elected, California would collapse into the Pacific, I think their chances might improve (based on adopting a more progressive platform than their current one).


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 09:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re" Israel-Lebanon war:

"... and of course the Hezbollah bombing of Gaza..."

Muhahaha! She said it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 January 2007 09:22 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yet overall, her position is reasonable and not identical to the Iranian position, wgich yours seems to be, based on your recent recitiation of Iranian talking points.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:26 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Yet overall, her position is reasonable and not identical to the Iranian position, wgich yours seems to be, based on your recent recitiation of Iranian talking points.

Just a suggestion - take this to an appropriate thread before this one gets hijacked like so many others.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 January 2007 09:30 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll take your suggestion.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 09:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tell you what, how about I tell you what my position is on Iran. I will speak for myself. You can speak for yourself.

For instance, I said once, twice, three times here, that I thought in all likelyhood the present president of Iran was a racist. I merely demured on wether or not that racism could properly be described as anti-semitism, for reasons I outlined.

I would hardly say that saying the President of Iran is in all likelyhood a racist a pro-Iranian position.

I notice that your little intellectual choo-choo train of associated ideas has now moved beyond simply saying that questioning the Holocaust is in and of itself "antisemetism," to the point where even questioning that idea is anti-semetism, and even to the point where suggesting Israel manipulates the Holocaust for the benefit of giving it more political lattitude is anti-semetism as well.

I am really looking forward to your compendium of banned thoughts, Mr. Civil Rights lawyer.

BTW, this is overt trolling and also internet stalking and I think it would be appropriate if you took a few days off, thanks.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:32 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah me... too late... Sigh.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 09:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well what? Why should I let overt smere stand.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:39 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well what? Why should I let overt smere stand.

I didn't say to let it stand. I would have posted:

quote:
See reply to overt smear here.

along with a link to a new thread.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 January 2007 09:41 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The whole damn press conference was built to try and reframe what is going on to make May appear in a better light, and trying to make a partisian parameter for our rejecting of May's words and nothing more.

Then she trys to sell herself as being naive.

Oh, and she is trying to make it seem that stating choice is a black or white position is wrong and she is not going to recognize an either or position. So really what she is doing is that she is going to try to fence sit, and call it "contextualizing" the issue. Bad enough in itself but she goes ong to say other, incredibly disconcerting things.

As she said; We must think about "right to life" for the day when abortions are made illegal again? WTF? Did I hear that correctly?

And she concluded by say this was seized upon by the left during the London campaign? Hello it was after that.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 January 2007 09:47 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
notice that your little intellectual choo-choo train of associated ideas has now moved beyond simply saying that questioning the Holocaust is in and of itself "antisemetism,"

Yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.

Nowhere did I suggest that you don't have freedom of speech, Mr. Zundel. So, no need to accuse me of that.

And ho ho! You complain of "internet stalking?"
I guess that means I should just let you post your tripe, and not respond. Freedom of speech my butt.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 09:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.

Nowhere did I suggest that you don't have freedom of speech, Mr. Zundel. So, no need to accuse me of that.

And ho ho! You complain of "internet stalking?"
I guess that means I should just let you post your tripe, and not respond. Freedom of speech my butt.


Frankly, this is a direct breech of the posting policy of this board, which you very well know.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 28 January 2007 09:56 AM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.

Nowhere did I suggest that you don't have freedom of speech, Mr. Zundel.



I am not really inclined towards agreeing with your statements, Mr House, but I do agree with the first.

However, as for the second, are you serious? Or was it just a wisecrack?


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[reposted further down to avoid thread drift on TAT]

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:58 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:


I am not really inclined towards agreeing with your statements, Mr House, but I do agree with the first.


Oh, here we go, off the deep end. Moderators advised.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 09:59 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
As she said; We must think about "right to life" for the day when abortions are made illegal again? WTF? Did I hear that correctly?

And she concluded by say this was seized upon by the left during the London campaign? Hello it was after that.


You know, I'm still disturbed by the number of progressives and even some feminists that were prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt after her initial anti-choice statements.

Why did that happen? Because she is a woman? Because she calls herself "Green"? Because she's slippery and clever?

I think this bears some retrospective analysis. It must not happen again. And May must not stop hearing the thunder of condemnation for her position until she actually abandons it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 28 January 2007 10:09 AM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here you go, folks. I transcribed the section of the interview dealing with Judy Rebick's letter and May's position on abortion and posted it on EnMasse. Thought it would be a quick little exercise but actually it was quite the long section of quite a long interview. I think I got most of it ...

quote:
Q: For me, the nastiest things that I've read that have been said about you have come from the left. I wanted to ask you specifically what went through your mind when you received the letter from Judy Rebick.

EM: Well the first thing was I wish that Judy had phoned me, and in my public response to her it's no exaggeration to say that I think of her still as a friend. I think that somebody put her up to it, I think someone put a particular slant on what I said, contacted her, and said you've got to do something, because she opened her letter with 'I'm sorry I haven't acted sooner, but I was away' so I suspect that she had some pressure from somewhere to say something. I would have appreciated it if she'd phoned me first, because I don't think we're all that different in our views.

I think it's very odd, you know, actually, to have attacks because I was explaining to a roomful of wonderful Sisters of the Holy Order of St. Joseph's in London, I was explaining to a room that I knew would not agree with my position that is in fact that we must have access to legal and safe abortions in this country. Explaining to that group why that was the case, I've been attacked by people who essentially are on the same side as me but don't like my reasons. [laughs] So I find that very interesting. And I hope that it's gotten some perspective, and I really do like Judy, and I hope ... and the other funny thing that went through my mind was the headline that she was withdrawing support, of course came as something of a surprise because we didn't know we had her support! So I would love her support and I still hope to have it. I don't think that it's an irrevocable breach and I'm still very fond of her."

Q: Well, that you consider her a friend, I mean she said she tore up the cheque, I mean, this is, it's an unfriendly letter.

EM: It is unfriendly. But friendships can go through rough patches, don't you find, so I'm not prepared to write her off. And I never had a cheque made out to Rabble that I could tear up in retaliation, so I can only imagine that she really had a cheque to the Green Party because I didn't ever know she was going to support us. But she's given me ... we last saw each other when we were at a rally this summer, a rally of concern in Toronto about the bombing of Lebanon -- and of course the Hezbollah bombing of Gaza. I think she's very brave as a prominant member of the Jewish community to be outspoken about that issue. And the two of us met there had a good chat, and she was supportive, but I never would have called her a public supporter. And I think that she misunderstood what I was saying.

But context is everything, and if I'd known that every -- now I'm learning -- every single word you say can be pulled out of context. If you [want?] one word by itself without the previous context, you can draw an adverse conclusion. But I never in a million years as a feminist would have derided the achievements of the women's movement. Period. But I really object to slogans, that are distorting and oversimplified. And I probably was influenced in -- not probably, definitely influenced in my answer by the fact that last semester I was taking a course in moral existance at St. Paul which dealt directly with this issue and others, and Professor Kenneth Melchion [?] who's quite marvellous, class discussion also focussed on the fact that in our society we seem to have rejected issues of moral complexity. That everything has to be down to you're for us or you're against us, and it's black and it's white. And I determined that in my political life, now that I have a political life, I would attempt on many issues to deal with them fully.

And my first, I shouldn't probably bring it up again, I'm going to get back in trouble, the first one I got in trouble was by trying to contextualise the seal hunt issue. And immediately I had people in the animal rights movement saying that I'd gone soft. [Saying] no, the Green Party is against the seal hunt. But I'm from the Maritimes, I know seal hunters, I have friends who are seal hunters, and I don't think that we deal well with an ecosystem-wide issue by focussing on this one aspect, when in fact the people in Newfoundland have larger issues, and I was contextualising it around the collapse of cod stocks, the way in which the seals are used as a political scapegoat for the effect of draggers on the cod fishery.

So it's interesting, and I may not be suited to politics, because I will persist in contextualised, full, responsible, detailed responses, where I think they're warranted. And in this issue I think it's a mistake to draw battle lines, because what it does is it alienates, it creates the impression, a chasm, that people who are concerned -- and you do have, we do have ministers in this country who preach to their congregation don't vote for anyone who's for same-sex marriage. Don't vote for anyone who defends a legal right to an abortion. And I think that's wrong. And I think there are moral issues in this country that are never -- the fact that the so-called moral issues are reduced to same-sex marriage and abortion is a big mistake. Poverty is a profoundly moral question. The climate crisis is a profoundly moral question. And I'd like to create some space for people who feel that because they have a sense of, a discomfort with abortion that they need to think about the right to life side of the issue from the point of view of what happens if abortions are illegal, and we end up going back to that dreaded world, where women would seek out illegal abortions and die for no reason. When legal abortion is perfectly reasonable, it's a woman's right, it should be accepted, and even those people who see it as an issue of morality, morality is not [at all one size? side?], is all I was trying to get across.

Q: But reading some of the comments after you responded to her letter, and reading the forum where people responded to what you wrote, again, some of the comments made the original letter that Judy Rebick wrote to you seem positively friendly and I gathered that their issue was that you acknowledged that even though a woman should have a right to an abortion, the fact that it is a moral decision and a morally complex one, they felt was a dangerous thing to admit.

EM: I think that again what I said in my letter to Judy, if I can reconstruct what I said, was that I didn't think it should be a thought crime to admit that this is an issue of moral complexity. It seems dead obvious to me. [Laughs] And so if you can't speak truth out loud, for fear that you've somehow given the so-called enemy some kind of ammunition, you just discredit yourself. And the Green Party of Canada, the resolution from our conference is very clever -- I mean, not, I don't mean clever in the way of being sneaky -- but I mean I was thrilled when I, to find, because I wasn't part of that resolution, to find a resolution that was pro-choice and life. Interesting [interested?], well-constructed, speaking to the very issues that I've always -- so I feel that the Green Party is my home in lots of ways, and one of the things is that it's not just me within the party that's prepared to say what kind of society do we want, let's not have this whole issue defined by the sloganeering.

And I will say I'm very glad from your last comment that I never went back to that website to see what else was posted. [Laughs] That's just from a lack of time, in my empty hours I'll go back and find the blog sites where I'm attacked the most.

Q: But again, coming from the left. Which is interesting.

EM: I'm sure. Well the NDP, let's face it, strategically, this was the, the NDP seized on this during the London campaign, the candidate for the NDP, because it wasn't just with St. Joseph's and the sisters in which I gave that kind of response, I gave it in the public debate on women's issues in the city library, and in a high school. I said look, this is our position, but this is where slogans I think create such a polarised issue that it's not healthy for society. Let's find ways to dialogue. Yes, we're going to have legal abortions. Now let's talk. Not reopening the debate, legal abortions are a right, that's important, let's talk about what kind of society we want and how we could actually reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. And Megan Walker who was the NDP candidate, and her people in the audience, were kind of salivating because they thought, now we got her. You could see the attack approach that came out right away. So I know that some of the attacks on websites are NDP-inspired. And that's okay, that's part of politics.



From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good on yah, and so industrious too.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 January 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
You know, I'm still disturbed by the number of progressives and even some feminists that were prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt after her initial anti-choice statements.

Why did that happen? Because she is a woman? Because she calls herself "Green"? Because she's slippery and clever?

I think this bears some retrospective analysis. It must not happen again. And May must not stop hearing the thunder of condemnation for her position until she actually abandons it.


In restrospect, now that she is saying she wants abortions made illegal in this interview, by her saying that someday they will be again, show we were exactly correct to react so strongly against her comments to the nuns.

She is sneaky and slippery, she even used the words "being clever" to describe her actions, but then defined what she meant as; "we are not being sneaky clever though". Oh Ya? You are Elizabeth, right down to the commment you made on how normally would not be talking with someone on transit, on a Sunday morning as you would be in church!

The whole interview by her was ONE long LIE.
It was an advertisement, framing Choice as a moral argument and denoting it should be illegal, while being made to appear as a news interview.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 10:26 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't see her say she wants abortions made illegal in this interview. Can you back that up with a quote?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 January 2007 10:38 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I read Tehanu's transcript twice, and didn't see May saying abortion should be illegal.

BTW, I'm hearing impaired, I didn't listen to the interview, afraid I might miss something. I rely on transcripts of interviews. Thanks, Tehanu!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 10:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't the Green Party position that Abortion should be legal but that women seeking abortion should be psychologically abused by pro-life "councillors" before being allowed to have one, or something along those lines?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 January 2007 10:45 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I didn't see her say she wants abortions made illegal in this interview. Can you back that up with a quote?

I stated that her discussing the fact of when/if abortions are illegal again signify as desire to see it happen IMV.

quote:
...discomfort with abortion that they need to think about the right to life side of the issue from the point of view of what happens if abortions are illegal

How else would you take this? Telling us we need to think about "right to life" from the point of view of what happens *if ( I am going back to relisten to this part as I am not sure she said if) abortions are made illegal.

She has implied that somehow abortions will become illegal, that implication says much BTW on its own. And because of this we should think about right to life point of view. That makes no sense really other than by accepting that she is saying pro-choicers must accept right to life as abortions will, and ergo should, be illegal.

After all, why should we think about that point of view, why even mention it other than by framing it as a "question of morality" that needs addressing.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 10:46 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't the Green Party position that Abortion should be legal but that women seeking abortion should be psychologically abused by pro-life concillors before being allowed to have one, or something along those lines?

Yeah, I don't think remind is correct on this one, even though I think she captured the essence of May. But if May had actually said abortion should be banned, her welcome departure from the political scene would surely be under way by now. Even Stephen Harper hasn't been that honest yet.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 11:00 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
How else would you take this? Telling us we need to think about "right to life" from the point of view of what happens *if ( I am going back to relisten to this part as I am not sure she said if) abortions are made illegal.

I would take it in the context of the entire sentence. You've misread it because you cut off part of her sentence. This is what she said:

quote:
And I'd like to create some space for people who feel that because they have a sense of, a discomfort with abortion that they need to think about the right to life side of the issue from the point of view of what happens if abortions are illegal, and we end up going back to that dreaded world, where women would seek out illegal abortions and die for no reason. When legal abortion is perfectly reasonable, it's a woman's right, it should be accepted, and even those people who see it as an issue of morality, morality is not [at all one size? side?], is all I was trying to get across.

She's saying she would like to create a space where people who are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion can think about what it would be like if we went back to the the days when abortions are illegal and women were dying of illegal abortions for no reason. She goes on to say that legalized abortion is perfectly reasonable and that it should be accepted, even by people who see it as an issue of morality.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but don't they also think that there should be some formalized legal steps intervening between the time a woman decides to get an abortion and the actual abortion to make the abortion legal, per se, such as "life councilling" and the like.

That, if true, doesn't sound like legal abortion, but regulated abortion.

And then once you insert an element of regulation, were does that regulation begin and end, and haven't you undermined the whole principle of "choice."

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 11:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but that's a far cry from what remind was claiming that she was saying.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 11:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I think the argument is perhaps more clearly stated as that May is actually talking about making abortion illegal, until such a time as it is approved, or certain adminstrative hurdles are crossed.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 11:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is no longer an issue between a woman and her conscience, and whomever else she seeks to make her advisors, but a decision made between a woman and the state.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 11:14 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think she said that at all.

I don't like her stand on this issue because she hasn't backed down from her comments about abortion being a "tragic" necessity, and bringing up the idea of counselling women who want them (which brings up all sorts of nasty images like what you mention). But that said, we can't just go about making shit up, you know? Her position is bad enough without distorting it. It's unfair to say she supports making it illegal until administrative hurdles are crossed. She didn't say that or even imply it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 11:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But it seems to me that May's solution to the (non problem btw) is to reverse the onus of decision from the woman to the state, more or less, and this amounts to making it illegal until approved. However she may protest that she is pro-choice, in fact, it seems she is not, she is for regulated abortion.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 11:18 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle's take is correct, and I'm not sure why there would be any debate on this - except that once again, it shows IMO the scummy deceptive nature of May's intervention.

I think the best approach is to write her off as "anti-choice" and stop debating the nuances of just how anti-choice her latest interviews have been.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 11:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, "anti-choice" not so much "pro-life." That is probably the best description.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 11:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now I would like to know if there is going to be any moderatorial intervention on me being called Ernst Zundel, and otherwise stalked and smeared in this thread. I don't usually ask for such things, but this is a little over the top.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 28 January 2007 11:50 AM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, "anti-choice" not so much "pro-life." That is probably the best description.

I would caution that "anti-choice" is not the same as "anti-abortion" or "pro-life." Communist China forces women to have abortions if they have already had too many children. They are both pro-abortion and anti-choice.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 January 2007 12:07 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once again May frames the issue of the legality of abortion in terms of how women would die if abortion were made illegal.

If someone comes up with a 100% safe and simple abortion method (a pill perhaps?) would May no longer have a reason for keeping abortions legal?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 January 2007 12:10 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
She's saying she would like to create a space where people who are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion can think about what it would be like if we went back to the the days when abortions are illegal and women were dying of illegal abortions for no reason. She goes on to say that legalized abortion is perfectly reasonable and that it should be accepted, even by people who see it as an issue of morality.

Ok, I got it now, after listening x 4, and reading it yet again, I think. So she was talking about the right to life of the women who would access illegal abortions and die should abortions be illegal, and that pro lifers should think about that when they think about right to life?

If so, I can accept that that could be an example of dialogue on "moral complexity", at least at surface value.

But what then is she doing with that example? What is its purpose? Is she trying to create a mushy middle, as now she has framed a possible meeting position for anti-choice and pro-choice to dialogue at? Is she stating a mediation point that anti-choice are willing to give on, if pro-choice also has a position to give on? Or is just a useless rhetorical prospective that means little but sounds good as a supposed explanation of her nuanced statement to the nuns? Or other?

Michelle, she did not just say; "legalized abortion is perfectly reasonable"

May said: "Whenlegal abortion is perfectly reasonable, it's a woman's right, it should be accepted.."

For me there is a very big difference in the "contextual" value and extended meaning of the use of "when" at the beginning of her sentence. Using "when" sets up a notion of it not always being perfectly reasonable does it not? She does not even state that our abortion laws are perfectly reasonable.

Really, am going to think all this over and have another listen, because instincts still are telling me, she was implying other, but will admit it could be personal bias, as of yet.

Having said that, she says that the Green party is pro-choice and life. Huh? She just sloganeered while riding the fence so to speak, my how clever. But again what does she mean by that comment?

Pro-choice actually is pro-life. By its very nature, choice is the awareness that the decision is up to the individual to try to give birth to the carried fetus, or not to.

Her commentary throughout that whole section makes me feel like she was saying more than was said, again, I am going to have to think about it now in the context you pointed out.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 28 January 2007 12:18 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

May said: "Whenlegal abortion is perfectly reasonable, it's a woman's right, it should be accepted.."


I took that to mean "while" legal abortion is perfectly reasonable...

Did you interpret it to mean some time in the future?

(Edited: having reread your post, I see you took 'when' to mean something like "on the occasion that"
That is still different from my interpretation).

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 28 January 2007 12:24 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Once again May frames the issue of the legality of abortion in terms of how women would die if abortion were made illegal.


I do find that argument odd, but it's not all she said. I would think the larger issue here is the social stigma, or the need for abortions to go underground, instead of having everything out in the open.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 January 2007 01:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
I do find that argument odd, but it's not all she said. I would think the larger issue here is the social stigma, or the need for abortions to go underground, instead of having everything out in the open.
I think you are reading into her position things that she didn't say.

The only argument she has given for keeping abortion legal is that the alternative would lead to the deaths of women in illegal abortions. It's either kill fetuses or kill women. That's her strategy for appealing to the Nun vote.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 03:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Now I would like to know if there is going to be any moderatorial intervention on me being called Ernst Zundel, and otherwise stalked and smeared in this thread. I don't usually ask for such things, but this is a little over the top.

Sorry, I left the computer before this post. I kind of skimmed over those posts earlier, but the thread was on track by the time I came along so I didn't read them closely.

But yes, that was absolutely inexcusable, mostly because of the insult itself but also because it was a complete thread derailment in order to make personal jabs. Lay off, Jeff.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 January 2007 03:33 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point was that Ernst Zundel, and all holocaust deniers, always make claims that their freedom of speech is being denied.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 03:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't care what your point was. You called him "Mr. Zundel" and that's way out of line. I'm sure you know this.

Anyhow, I hesitated to say anything because I didn't want to derail the thread again with this stuff, but I couldn't let that one slide.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 28 January 2007 03:44 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The point was that Ernst Zundel, and all holocaust deniers, always make claims that their freedom of speech is being denied.

That is what all racists say. Whether they are defending holocaust denier Zundel, or ethnic cleansing advocate Bibi, they will resort to freedom of speech arguments.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 04:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The point was that Ernst Zundel, and all holocaust deniers, always make claims that their freedom of speech is being denied.

This is the same attack revisted.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 04:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I missed that implication. Jeff, Cueball is not a Holocaust denier, and you're still out of line if you're still implying that he is one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 04:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For all further lively discussion about Holocaust denial and accusations of anti-semitism, please click here and visit the new thread dedicated to that purpose.

Now, back to the thread.

I'm wondering how babblers think the Ottawa Citizen interview will help/hurt Elizabeth May's credibility?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 January 2007 04:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that of the 30 odd people who have heard this interview in whole or in part, 25 are from this site. The rest were the participants and producers themselves.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 04:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I doubt it will do either. Because I doubt very many people will listen to it except for major political junkies like us.

I've never thought this issue will make or break May. She's pro-choice "enough" for most pro-choice people, I think. Most people won't parse her sentences the way we have. They'll just get a general feeling that she's pro-choice although not as "militant" about it as us radical feminists. And really, the "abortion is a tragic but necessary choice" plays well to a lot of people who don't think about the issue much, are generally pro-choice when they think about it, and figure the issue is closed in Canada anyhow.

Doesn't play well to me, but I don't think I am very representative of the average voter, especially on issues like this.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 05:04 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
And really, the "abortion is a tragic but necessary choice" plays well to a lot of people who don't think about the issue much, are generally pro-choice when they think about it, and figure the issue is closed in Canada anyhow.

Doesn't play well to me, but I don't think I am very representative of the average voter, especially on issues like this.


I agree with you, and actually I misstated my question. I was more concerned as to whether she was rebuilding her credibility with progressive and politically conscious people or not. My short-term hope is that progressives dismiss her as anti-choice - because the most damaging thing is for ordinary hard-working Canadian families (joke!) to see progressives, feminists, etc. appear to be re-arguing what should be a given, closed issue, namely, women's right to choose.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 28 January 2007 05:43 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I noticed that May identified herself as a feminist and yet she did not mention the patriarchal nature of the Canadian state.

For me, that is the reason that abortion should not be discussed in Canadian politics.

Implying that federal party leaders discussing abortion is some kind of national discussion of morals and/or values tells me that May has no concept of power relations in our society.

She is either:
a) oblivious of her privileged position as a political elite.

or

b) aware of her position and using it to oppress women.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 28 January 2007 06:22 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I'm wondering how babblers think the Ottawa Citizen interview will help/hurt Elizabeth May's credibility?

I think, more than anything, it may influence Ottawa Citizen editorials. They already endorsed a Green candidate in one of the Ottawa ridings during the last elections.
And you never know, transcriptions of portions of her interview may make the rounds on blogs.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 28 January 2007 06:26 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
I think you are reading into her position things that she didn't say.

The only argument she has given for keeping abortion legal is that the alternative would lead to the deaths of women in illegal abortions. It's either kill fetuses or kill women. That's her strategy for appealing to the Nun vote.


You're right that it was the argument she used to appeal to the nuns. It likely wouldn't be the only reason she has for supporting choice though. She did say "it's a woman's right" although there are various interpretations on here about what that statement means.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 January 2007 06:34 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just heard of a student union event where quotes were provided, and participants were asked to match the quote with the politician who said it.

Nobody got the match for "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose."

Participants were told the answer. It was met with surprise.

Also, May's shifting position is being noted by Wikipedia


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 28 January 2007 06:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sometime before she actually announced she was running for GP leader, I liked May. That was then, this is now. I

I have so much sympathy for that comment.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 28 January 2007 06:49 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The point was that Ernst Zundel, and all holocaust deniers, always make claims that their freedom of speech is being denied.

OKay. For a moment I thought maybe you were seriously suggesting that it was Zundel posting under that psuedonym. It seemed hard to believe, but you never know unless you ask.


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 28 January 2007 06:51 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't care what your point was. You called him "Mr. Zundel" and that's way out of line. I'm sure you know this.

If it's not fair to call someone Zundel, does this mean I cannot call people Hitler or Stalin if I don't like their opinions?


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 January 2007 06:54 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:

If it's not fair to call someone Zundel, does this mean I cannot call people Hitler or Stalin if I don't like their opinions?


Google "Godwin's Law".


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 28 January 2007 06:56 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Oh, here we go, off the deep end. Moderators advised.


Hey, ... whaddya mean?!?!


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 January 2007 07:06 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:

Hey, ... whaddya mean?!?!


It wasn't about you - it was about the off-topic fight that had broken out between two usual combattants. When you joined in, I thought it was time to blow the whistle on nuclear proliferation. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 January 2007 07:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:
If it's not fair to call someone Zundel, does this mean I cannot call people Hitler or Stalin if I don't like their opinions?

Quit derailing the thread, please.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 January 2007 08:59 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
I took that to mean "while" legal abortion is perfectly reasonable...

Did you interpret it to mean some time in the future?

(Edited: having reread your post, I see you took 'when' to mean something like "on the occasion that"
That is still different from my interpretation).


Using "while" abortion is perfectly reasonable legally sets up a not so different connotation than the use of "when" IMV. The use of "while" would suggest a non-lasting situation, as well, because it could not be considered to be ponderings.

After some thought, about her defining abortion rights as being either the fetus's life or the womans and the fetuses life if abortion is illegal I counclude that her words are even more sinister than I thought. As I really did not get how little she understood, or respected, what pro-choice means and how much she is out to change it.

She sets up the notion of "on the occasion that" right from the first sentence. After all why does she want to "create some space" and what is this space comprised of? We know this space is for people who have discomfort with abortions, this is the anti-choice people. Then she speaks of going back, as being not acceptable, so that would be the pro choice people and their positon. From this point comes a third position, the mushy middle, if you will, that May is trying to create as defined by the use of "when" or "upon occasion of" in company with "perfectly reasonable".

Now she has set up 2 questions that have defined a position of debate that she is utilizing. As that what she is doing, not only is she addressing her audience, feminists in Canada, but she is debating abortions in the same venue. And she trying very hard to use this as a wwedge to open up discussion in my opinion.

The questions that she is suggesting debate be centered upon are:

1. Just "when" is it "perfectly reasonable"

2. What is "perfectly reasonable"

Because after all, to her abortions are abortions, and have nothing to do with pro-choice. If she was pro-choice, she would not be framing a debate, let alone discussing the points that the debate should follow.

I stand by my first premise, she was still inferring that abortion rights status quo, of what it is at this point, is unacceptable.


beyond that is her use of perfectly reasonable


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 29 January 2007 02:53 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose."

and the thought that women who want an abortion need "counciling."

I think that's about all we need to consider here. If we give her the benefit of the doubt that she hadn't

quote:
known that every -- now I'm learning -- every single word you say can be pulled out of context,
after 30 years in public life as an activist and a federal advisor and years as an organizer for the Greens, then we have to accept that she's a remarkably slow learner. She's just a kooky klutz.

But if we don't give her the benefit of the doubt by presuming she's incapable of learning and has a tin-ear when it comes to her public pronouncements, then we have to presume she meant what she said and is responsible for her statements.

quote:
I'm against abortion.
Why would any politician say this using exactly these words? I've seen politicians like Hillary say it should be "Safe, legal and rare." I've heard feminists and politicians alike say words to the effect that "nobody is 'pro-abortion' but I am pro-choice." Why, when you are the leader of a party which is just starting to be taken seriously, do you use this exact turn of phrase: I'm against abortion? I think its not so much because the Greens want to enact a socially conservative abortion policy, as much as because they're counting votes. They don't have to win anywhere in the next election. If they pull 8 or 10% of the vote, they get enough money in the subsequent election to compete on television and the radio and in print with the big kids, or at least the NDP. and if they can cobble that number together by making anti-choice statements which get them votes amongst social conservatives across the country, then so be it.

Finally, what does it say when she says "I was taken out of context." Which, a.) is bullshit; and, b.) belittles the arguments of people who were rightly freaked out by what she said? So much for listening and caring. So much for standing by her beliefs and demonstrating some backbone, integrity, and, oh, what's that word? Leadership?

And when she says that Judy must have been 'put up to' writing the letter, what the hell does that imply? That Judy, who devoted her entire life to feminism, when commenting on the keystone feminist issue of our times, had to get some help on what to think and what to say? From who Liz? A man? Again, her tin ear goes clang clang clang.

And when does a woman need counciling before an abortion? After a rape? After incest?

And why did she take no opportunity to speak up for things which tend to cut back on teenage pregnancies, like sex-ed, and literacy, and contraception, and social programs to lift people out of poverty? Or, if she wants to make it easier for poor or single women to opt to keep a 'surprise,' why didn't she say something about national daycare, or the way society disregards the cost of reproductive labour, or that we need to reestablish the social links at the micro level which have been atomized by our economic structure, or, or, or...rather than her frivolous claims that she didn't consider what she was saying and people didn't get it anyway.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 January 2007 04:55 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remind, you're parsing May's sentences as if that transcript is actually a written article rather than rambling conversational speech.

Here's the quote again, but listening to the audio, this is how I would have punctuated it:

quote:
And I'd like to create some space for people who feel that because they have a sense of, a discomfort with abortion that they need to think about the right to life side of the issue from the point of view of what happens if abortions are illegal, and we end up going back to that dreaded world, where women would seek out illegal abortions and die for no reason, when legal abortion is perfectly reasonable, it's a woman's right, it should be accepted, and even those people who see it as an issue of morality, morality is not [at all one size? side?], is all I was trying to get across.

That "when" is part of the continuation of her thought, it's a connector word, not the beginning of a new thought. It's a conversation, not a formal essay. She's saying that people who are against abortion should think about what it would be like to go back to that dreaded world where people were dying of illegal abortions for no reason, when it's more reasonable to have legal abortion as a woman's right.

I think you're working really hard to try to find stuff in what she said that really isn't there. I think if you listen to her say it conversationally, it's clear what she meant. But conversation style doesn't translate well to the written word. It's not fair to parse every little connector word and throw the meaning way off. There's enough to be unhappy about with her position without making stuff up.

P.S. About the counselling - I don't like that she brought that up either because it immediately conjures in my mind thoughts of some of the more reactionary elements in the US who want to make pro-life counselling mandatory before women can get abortions. But let's be fair - that is not what May has ever suggested. She said that counselling should be AVAILABLE for everyone (not mandatory!) who wants it. Which goes along with her idea that abortion is "tragic" but necessary in many cases. (Which I disagree with, of course.) But that's way different than the spin some people are putting on what she said.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 29 January 2007 07:36 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
while i haven't listened yet to the actual audio file (it's early, i don't have the stomach for that yet), based on Tehanu's transcript (thanks btw!) some things are quite clear:

-may is a terrible speaker. and she has had decades of public speaking experience. this is illustrated by the convoluted, rambling nature of her interview, glaringly obvious in the transcript form. as such, it has given rise to speculation on her actual meaning and intent of what she has said, the result of which is the differring opinions on that like remind and michelle, who both clearly don't like what she said, but are now debating it between each other. this in no way says anything negative about remind and michelle, and begs the question: why can't May ever clearly say what she means? this would clear up the confusion, wouldn't it?

-she doesn't imply, no, she outright states that she thinks Judy Rebick, a respected writer and feminist of international profile, had someone "put her up to it" I'm offended by this and i'm not even Judy! it doesn't even need any explanation of how rude this concept is. unbelievable.

-this is just weird:

quote:
... we last saw each other when we were at a rally this summer, a rally of concern in Toronto about the bombing of Lebanon -- and of course the Hezbollah bombing of Gaza.

is she really that obtuse? the rally was not one of simple "concern". it was a protest of Israel bombing Lebannon and targeting civilians and infrastructure illegally. Isreal bombed Lebannon. Isreal bombs Gaza. Hezbollah bombs Isreal. simple facts available everywhere. she is the leader of a national political party. she may want to check with Stockwell Day about the direction rivers run, too.

-this bears mentioning again:

quote:
But context is everything, and if I'd known that every -- now I'm learning -- every single word you say can be pulled out of context.

come on elizabeth. how long have you been in public life? still learning? please stop insulting all of our intelligence. and if you are still learning, what on earth are you doing leading a national political party?

-this is pure, after the fact spin:

quote:
EM: I'm sure. Well the NDP, let's face it, strategically, this was the, the NDP seized on this during the London campaign, the candidate for the NDP, because it wasn't just with St. Joseph's and the sisters in which I gave that kind of response, I gave it in the public debate on women's issues in the city library, and in a high school. I said look, this is our position, but this is where slogans I think create such a polarised issue that it's not healthy for society. Let's find ways to dialogue. Yes, we're going to have legal abortions. Now let's talk. Not reopening the debate, legal abortions are a right, that's important, let's talk about what kind of society we want and how we could actually reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. And Megan Walker who was the NDP candidate, and her people in the audience, were kind of salivating because they thought, now we got her. You could see the attack approach that came out right away. So I know that some of the attacks on websites are NDP-inspired. And that's okay, that's part of politics.

correct me if i'm wrong here, but this issue came to light after a poster on this board found an audio transcript on a Green Party blog, by a Green Party member, after the by-election! The NDP to my knowlege has never issued a comment on it in any official party capacity, and it has been the tireless efforts of feminist bloggers and writers online and in print who have brought this to light. Not the NDP. If anyone is guilty of a partisan smear, it is May, and in my view, gives lie to the image she is trying to portray herself as an inexperienced, somewhat clunky person, new to politics. she is quite savvy we can see, and i am quite sure she knows damn well what she is doing. and if she doesn't, then perhaps she should listern her own words:

quote:
...I may not be suited to politics

and spare us the trouble.

-lastly, i want to say that i still think May doesn't get it. she implies Judy was coerced into writing a rebuttal to her position. she disssembles and refuses to take responsibiltiy for her own words by saying she was caught up in the spirit of some university class she was taking, and then tries to deflect the whole thing as a partisan smear cooked up by the NDP, when there is no evidence to even suggest that.

it also still seems that she is convinced that abortion is a tragedy that should be avoided at all costs, only to be done when nothing else can be. i dissagree vehemently. consider this example. i am not poor. i have a good job, and think of myself as educated and intelligent. i do not want to have children. any woman i have a relationship with knows this. many women i know don't use the pill because they too are educated and have decided that the health consequences of it are unnacepable. so our condom breaks during sex and she finds out she is pregnant. she makes the informed decision to terminate the pregnancy. there is no tragedy here. there are sound decicions made by intelligent, consenting adults. May is insulting me and everyone else to imply that if someone just counselled us, a different decision would be made. fuck off. now. quickly.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 29 January 2007 09:00 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Remind
Pro-choice actually is pro-life. By its very nature, choice is the awareness that the decision is up to the individual to try to give birth to the carried fetus, or not to.
Her commentary throughout that whole section makes me feel like she was saying more than was said, again, I am going to have to think about it now in the context you pointed out.

M.Spector
The only argument she has given for keeping abortion legal is that the alternative would lead to the deaths of women in illegal abortions. It's either kill fetuses or kill women. That's her strategy for appealing to the Nun vote.


I didn't bother separating these quotes and responding separately because my response is in general to the whole discussion but wanted to point these out. Remind - I think your doubts are justified because I have them as well. Pro-choice is pro-life because it defends all women and I respect your opinions throughout the various threads on this issue. M.Spector you are right on the mark.
This is my problem with the whole thing. I don't like the question set up because it smacked of pro-May victimization. She is not being attacked from the "left" she is being rightfully questioned by people within the Green Party (myself) and others who take issue with what she is saying. How does she know the people who question her are NDP supporters? She wants it to be that way. Her implication that Judy Rebick is a dupe of the NDP or those who position themselves on the 'left' is insulting.
Elizabeth May's problem is fast becoming the Green Party's problem. As a Christian she believes that life begins at conception and thus has , in my opinion, avoided all other possibilities for moral argument because she herself personaly cannot support them. (BTW not all Christians believe life begins at conception, but she herself has said "as a Christian...") Thus she sees it as an 'us' or 'them' situation or a 'necessary evil' situation. As a non-christian I don't believe life begins at conception and frankly see no room in her beliefs to consider my point of view. She ignores the history of people such as Dr. Morgantaler who provided safe but 'illegal' abortions in violation of the existing law at the time. So her argument that this is a legalize it or back alley with a coat hanger debate is insulting, and morally narrow minded for someone who considers all points of view.

I say that this is becoming a Green Party problem because she is prominently displayed as the sole face of the Party and that no one in the Party disagrees with her thus all the criticism must be coming from her 'political enemies' with their own agenda. She is using her personal beliefs to drive issues and giving them more weight than Party resolutions and the beliefs of many Green Party members and this is wrong. She claims that moral discussion needs to take place and then promptly shuts down any discussion by emphasizing her personal moral point of view and only her personal moral point of view.
Lately when I hear her speak I feel my blood rising and in particular with this issue I want to scream. She is not naive. This is deliberate strategy on her part and it is frustrating to watch. She has openly tried to position herself as the lone, brave, honest 'anti-politician' politician but expresses herself cleverly in deceptive meandering. To this end I find Minkpants analogy above very good.

If she continues in this mode she is going to get burnt badly. If the Green Party doesn't soon start to present the other faces in the party and present the party as a whole then 'her' mistakes will become 'our' mistakes. She is going to have to start putting her personal views to the background and start talking for the Green Party. The abortion issue is a clear sign of this disconnect on her part and a political mistake on the Party's part.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2007 09:33 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Remind, you're parsing May's sentences as if that transcript is actually a written article rather than rambling conversational speech.

There is a reason I labelled it a "press conference" later amended to a "free national promotional interview".

Her comments were not rambling, the outline responses to the questions prepared and asked would've have ben done in advance. I went into lisitening to her words with tha understanding in mind.

No one has that lengthy of an interview, or even a short one, with formed questions, without being told in advance what the questions were, so that one could have the answers prepared.

The interview was quite clearly set up as a rebuttal to what was going on with; Judy's letter, anger here and elsewhere, in regards to May's anti-choice comments. From this perspective everything she said has to be looked at as scripted and said for a reason.

May is not some naive "female" just entering politics, no matter how hard she trys to portray that persona. To think of her comments as just rambling dialogue with no purpose is doing a great disservice. She tried to set up the dialogue even so that people would be against parsing her words and accept them at face value by complaining that people parsed her words. I mean that is a primitive propaganda tool and nothing more.

Well, no one can take them at face value, there is no face value there is agenda and propaganda. The words and implications speak for themselves. It was not conversational ramblings that stated lies about when this all started. It was not ramblings that stated Judy was put up to rescuing feminists and pro-choice. It was not ramblings that tried to make this a partisian action when nothing could be further from the truth. And it is not ramblings when she is doing her damnest to try to open dialogue on abortion rights.

Why did her campaign manager tape that conversation with the nuns? Why was it released? Why was it put here so everyone could know? In fact, why this conversation with the Ottawa Citizen editiorial board put here yet again?

It is quite evident that not only is she not pro-choice, she is not even progressive. And it is also evident that she is working to an agenda that has little to with Green issues.

I am not going to insult May by thinking she is a naive politician, that rambles her way through press interviews, not really knowing what/why she is saying or implying/not implying things.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 29 January 2007 09:53 AM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

There is a reason I labelled it a "press conference" later amended to a "free national promotional interview".



Wait a minute, editorial boards meet with politicians all the time. The E-May interview was one of several on their site. They may well have initiated it. We don't know.

quote:

Her comments were not rambling, the outline responses to the questions prepared and asked would've have ben done in advance. I went into lisitening to her words with tha understanding in mind....


Are you sure the questions are known beforehand, or are you speculating? Most of the questions were probably ones that are commonly asked, so it may not have made a huge difference anyway.
(Besides some of the questions seemed to be spontaneous, in response to E-may's commentary).
quote:

The interview was quite clearly set up as a rebuttal to what was going on with; Judy's letter, anger here and elsewhere, in regards to May's anti-choice comments. From this perspective everything she said has to be looked at as scripted and said for a reason.


That portion about Judy Rebick was the first part of an interview that lasted nearly an hour. She talked about Jack Layton, foreign policy, and a whack of other things. I really doubt it was a set up. That's no more reasonable than saying Judy Rebick was set up.
I really wish you would stick to criticizing the content of what Elizabeth May said. That's fair game. Speculating about motives really doesn't lead anywhere.

From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2007 10:15 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
Wait a minute, editorial boards meet with politicians all the time. The E-May interview was one of several on their site. They may well have initiated it. We don't know.

Doesn't matter who initiated it, why do politicians participate? Because they get a free platform to voice what they want to and no other reason.

quote:
That portion about Judy Rebick was the first part of an interview that lasted nearly an hour. She talked about Jack Layton, foreign policy, and a whack of other things. I really doubt it was a set up. That's no more reasonable than saying Judy Rebick was set up.
I really wish you would stick to criticizing the content of what Elizabeth May said. That's fair game. Speculating about motives really doesn't lead anywhere.

Of course it was, as you noted all of that came first, do you not think that starnge? That dialogue came prior to the other things and set the tone of where she wanted to go. I have never been in a long media interview or even a short one, without it being previously scripted, outside of a mic being shoved in one's face. However, perhaps others have, if so, I am sure they will inform us of such. Until then, I will work on the basis that it was scripted.

I never said May was set up, I said the interview was scripted. So stop with the red herring compare to May's stating that Judy was set up.

Motives are the reason why politicians, or ALL people even, function, why would considering her motives be off base or "unfair" game? Tis weird that you would want to exclude considering her motives IMV.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 January 2007 10:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
I really wish you would stick to criticizing the content of what Elizabeth May said. That's fair game. Speculating about motives really doesn't lead anywhere.

Ha! Maybe you should write to your Fearless Leader and tell her the same thing. She basically said in the interview that she thinks Judy was coerced into writing her open letter to May, and that she accepted someone else's slant on May's words instead of judging for herself what May said.

But I guess you're just fine with that, right?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
surfdoc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13714

posted 29 January 2007 08:05 PM      Profile for surfdoc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Ha! Maybe you should write to your Fearless Leader and tell her the same thing.


quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen in another thread:

By the way, my user name is one I have used on other, non-political, forums, and has more to do with my interest in environmental issues than anything else. I did vote Green in the last federal election, but I voted NDP in the provincial one.


Is there a reason other than Forest's user name that you are assuming that he sees Elizabeth May as his leader?

From: Canada | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2007 08:13 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, you posted the quote of forests saying he voted Green federally, that is all the proof you need that May is his federal leader of choice and you provided it!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 29 January 2007 09:09 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Doesn't matter who initiated it, why do politicians participate? Because they get a free platform to voice what they want to and no other reason.


Well, wouldn't you participate if you were a politician? Who wouldn't?

quote:

Of course it was, as you noted all of that came first, do you not think that starnge? That dialogue came prior to the other things and set the tone of where she wanted to go. I have never been in a long media interview or even a short one, without it being previously scripted, outside of a mic being shoved in one's face. However, perhaps others have, if so, I am sure they will inform us of such. Until then, I will work on the basis that it was scripted.

I never said May was set up, I said the interview was scripted. So stop with the red herring compare to May's stating that Judy was set up.

Motives are the reason why politicians, or ALL people even, function, why would considering her motives be off base or "unfair" game? Tis weird that you would want to exclude considering her motives IMV.


I don't know how the interview process works, but it sounded spontaneous. I don't know if you had the chance to listen to it. It's about as spontaneous as any interview. And even if she'd been briefed about the questions, I have no reason to believe the process was any different than for other interviews.
Speculating about motives often goes hand in hand with conspiracy theories, which most of the time don't carry a lot of weight for me. Usually I look at what a person says first. If something sounds 'not right' in their voice, for example, I will dig a little deeper. Or if something in their actions is incongruent, then I would question their motives. But if you say, "she says A but means B" I would like you to back it up with some evidence. Something she has done that contradicts what she has said.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2007 09:21 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forestgreen really think about why I said she participated, as I was not saying she should not have, spinning things around to deflect I guess.

Have listened to the damn interview about 6 times now, have it saved to my hard drive even.

Again interviews are scripted people go in with notes on the questions going to be asked. Politicians go into such type of interviews, that May did, for a reason, not just to ramble on to hear themselves speak, they have a "message" they want to get out. So, please leave your rhetoric on conspiracy theories were it belongs in the toliet.

May's underlaying motives for the interview and what she said are up for discussion grabs.

Everything she says contradicts what she is saying. Which is why one has to look further, as to the why, and what exactly is she trying to say here.

She is not pro-choice and she is not a feminist and her words both a) and b) say it, and I have given examples above.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 29 January 2007 09:23 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Ha! Maybe you should write to your Fearless Leader and tell her the same thing. She basically said in the interview that she thinks Judy was coerced into writing her open letter to May, and that she accepted someone else's slant on May's words instead of judging for herself what May said.

But I guess you're just fine with that, right?


No, in fact I doubt Judy was set up, and I don't need to agree with everything Elizabeth May said. I don't know why you use that kind of sarcastic tone, either. May probably figured what Judy said was inconsistent with how she knew her in person, and was trying to come up with a reason for that.
And to me right now, Elizabeth May and the Greens are closer to my own views than the NDP - particularly on other issues like the environment, foreign policy, and so forth. I'm probably going to get chewed to pieces for saying that on here. But let's stick to the issues OK? I know better than to try to convert anyone to my way of thinking. The whole purpose of debate is that we both might learn something. And my views are not set in stone, you will be happy to know.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 29 January 2007 09:34 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Forestgreen really think about why I said she participated, as I was not saying she should not have, spinning things around to deflect I guess.

Have listened to the damn interview about 6 times now, have it saved to my hard drive even.

Again interviews are scripted people go in with notes on the questions going to be asked. Politicians go into such type of interviews, that May did, for a reason, not just to ramble on to hear themselves speak, they have a "message" they want to get out. So, please leave your rhetoric on conspiracy theories were it belongs in the toliet.

May's underlaying motives for the interview and what she said are up for discussion grabs.


Well, if she wanted to get her ideas across, there's not much to disagree about here. I got the impression that you thought there was something dishonest or sneaky about the process, whereas i see it as nothing out of the ordinary. Politicians get interviewed all the time.

quote:

Everything she says contradicts what she is saying. Which is why one has to look further, as to the why, and what exactly is she trying to say here.

She is not pro-choice and she is not a feminist and her words both a) and b) say it, and I have given examples above.


I will reread what you wrote and see if there's anything I missed.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 29 January 2007 09:53 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Why did her campaign manager tape that conversation with the nuns? Why was it released? Why was it put here so everyone could know? In fact, why this conversation with the Ottawa Citizen editiorial board put here yet again?



Again?? Had it been put here before? I listened to it, and heard her talk about Rabble, and Jack Layton (even though that part hasn't been discussed on this thread), and noticed it related to a lot of discussions on this board. People love to hear when their name is mentioned by someone (even if that someone is a website).
I hesitated, knowing that it might come across as promoting the GP, or adding fuel to the fire. But then I thought, if it furthers the discussion, it's OK. Better people know than try to guess what she would say. And I thought people would be interested, which they were.
Remind, you and I see differently on this topic, and I don't want to get into a war about it. We probably agree on a lot of other things, like how the Iraq war was bad, and how GWB is dangerous. E-May doesn't fit your definition of progressive or feminist, and that's fine. I won't argue with you about that. Regarding your other arguments, I will just ask you to provide more evidence, if I'm not convinced.

From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Painet Cirques
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13552

posted 30 January 2007 06:27 AM      Profile for Painet Cirques     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I think it's very odd, you know, actually, to have attacks because I was explaining to a roomful of wonderful Sisters of the Holy Order of St. Joseph's in London, I was explaining to a room that I knew would not agree with my position that is in fact that we must have access to legal and safe abortions in this country. Explaining to that group why that was the case, I've been attacked by people who essentially are on the same side as me but don't like my reasons. [laughs]"

While I personally witnessed many lies from her during the London campaign, this is particularily shameless. What's "interesting" is the fact that she leaves out her self-righteous speech to the nuns on how the thought of abortion made her "queasy" and how she could never, EVER imagine what would "induce" her to have one.

Something I'm really curious about is whether she can even get pregnant, while she's making all these moralizing statements about women who can.

I know the Green party do not consider themselves "environmentalist" and have made public statements to that effect, but religion has no place in the abortion debate when the growing human population of this planet is causing so much devastation, especially the first world population in particular. That she would even bring morality into an issue that is basically an environmental catastrophe shows her priorities and it sure as hell isn't the environment or overall human well-being.


From: London | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 30 January 2007 08:03 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Others have drawn attention to some of the more offensive aspects of May's interview (sorry I'm so late getting here).

With respect to her contention that the backlash over her remarks has been "NDP-inspired", that's just laughable. I'm an NDP activist because I care about a wide range of issues on which the party has shown leadership. But, that certainly doesn't mean that I'm speaking for the NDP every time I talk about one of those issues. As well, any links to the NDP by most of the others who have complained about her remarks are pretty tenuous.

I'd also like to add that her analysis of the non-confidence vote and its impact on the breakthrough that the Liberals were allegedly poised make on climate change is pure fantasy and straight out of the Liberal book of spin. Jamey Heath's article offers a partial rebuttal and many others have pointed out the egregious flaws of this line of argument.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 January 2007 08:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the flyer.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 31 January 2007 12:04 PM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're getting a little long here. I'm going to close this thread, but feel free to start it up again.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca