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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Nat Hentoff on Arar

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Nat Hentoff on Arar
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 February 2007 11:13 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I expect that future historians of our continuing decline as a source of liberty and inspiration to the world will tell the story of Maher Arar.


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0708,hentoff,75845,2.html


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 February 2007 03:38 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Amazing that Nat Hentoff is still writing and is still current - I first read him in the pages of Rolling Stone in the late 1960s. Excellent article, and thanks for posting the link.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 February 2007 06:40 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are you people serious? Whatever good he may once have done, Nat Hentoff in his old age has become a notorious anti-choice, anti-euthanasia, pro-Iraq invasion over-the-hill creep. If George W. Bush wrote a passionate article against the Armenian genocide, I'd be too embarrassed to post it. Couldn't you find some less offensive author to comment on this subject?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 February 2007 06:47 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I haven't read anything other than this article by Hentoff since the Rolling Stone days - almost 40 years ago. When did he become anti-choice? (I'm wondering if I have Hentoff mixed up with someone else...?)
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 February 2007 07:02 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
When did he become anti-choice? (I'm wondering if I have Hentoff mixed up with someone else...?)

At least 25 years ago. It caused a ruckus at the Village Voice at the time. And no, you're not mixing him up, it's the same Hentoff. People's views evolve (or deteriorate or come out of the closet) with time. Think Christopher Hitchens. Or David Horowitz. Etc.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 February 2007 07:04 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 February 2007 01:35 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you people serious? Whatever good he may once have done, Nat Hentoff in his old age has become a notorious anti-choice, anti-euthanasia, pro-Iraq invasion over-the-hill creep. If George W. Bush wrote a passionate article against the Armenian genocide, I'd be too embarrassed to post it. Couldn't you find some less offensive author to comment on this subject?

Your attitude is the same one that the Pope exhibited about Galileo. Crying anathema and attempting to throw the devil's spawn into the Outer Darkness is so 1300's, don't you think?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 February 2007 01:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hentoff marches to his own drummer. I won't attempt to defend his view on Iraq, but his anti-abortion and anti-ethunasia views are long-standing and principled, even if I may not agree with them.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 21 February 2007 01:54 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I won't attempt to defend his view on Iraq, but his anti-abortion and anti-ethunasia views are long-standing and principled, even if I may not agree with them.
I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Are you saying Hentoff's views on Iraq are not long-standing and/or principled?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 February 2007 02:21 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I started the thread because Hentoff wrote very well about Arar.

Then someone pronounced an anathema because of his views on euthanasia and abortion.

I think babblers with open minds will enjoy the Arar article.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 February 2007 02:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Hentoff marches to his own drummer. I won't attempt to defend his view on Iraq, but his anti-abortion and anti-ethunasia views are long-standing and principled, even if I may not agree with them.

I also don't understand your points on abortion and euthanasia. Are you suggesting that religious or other anti-women organizations which oppose choice are "unprincipled", while he is "principled"? What does all this mean?

Or put differently, if someone's racist or homophobic or anti-people views are "long-standing and principled", are they somehow deserving of our respect on that account?


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

posted 21 February 2007 02:24 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Then someone pronounced an anathema because of his views on euthanasia and abortion.

And Iraq.

An "anti-torture" article by someone who supported and supports the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the consequent torture, maiming, and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

I'm not sure if "hilarious" is the right word in such a tragic context.


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

posted 21 February 2007 02:33 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh! An instance in which you are unsure!

Breakthrough!

Actually, it is quite easy to write intelligently about torture and third-country rendition while having initially supported the Iraq War.

Not everyone is an ideologue who supports (or opposes!) the Leader in a down-the-line fashion.

Indeed, many of those who ARE ideologues tend to write in predictable fashion, with a certain blindness to nuance.

So, I recommend Hentoff on Arar even if he doesn't follow the party line on every conceivable subject.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 February 2007 02:37 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I also don't understand your points on abortion and euthanasia. Are you suggesting that religious or other anti-women organizations which oppose choice are "unprincipled", while he is "principled"? What does all this mean?

Or put differently, if someone's racist or homophobic or anti-people views are "long-standing and principled", are they somehow deserving of our respect on that account?


Are you equating racism and homophobia with anti-abortion and anti-enthunasia views? I'm not taking a shot at anyone. I'm only saying that Hentoff is a decent individual who takes a sincerely held view, whether it be freedom of speech, opposition to capital punishment, or opposition to abortion.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 February 2007 02:44 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Are you saying Hentoff's views on Iraq are not long-standing and/or principled?


Not long-standing.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 February 2007 02:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:

Are you equating racism and homophobia with anti-abortion and anti-enthunasia views?


That's a very intersting question. I'll think about it. But answer mine first. Can you give an example of "unprincipled" opposition to abortion?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 February 2007 03:00 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes. Someone who opposes abortion while at the same time being an enthusiastic supporter of capital punishment or opposing funding for government programs that benefit pregnant women and their newborn child.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 21 February 2007 03:11 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Yes. Someone who opposes abortion while at the same time being an enthusiastic supporter of capital punishment or opposing funding for government programs that benefit pregnant women and their newborn child.
So consistency is the key to being "principled"?

Opposing abortion and capital punishment = principled.

Supporting abortion and opposing capital punishment = ?


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

posted 21 February 2007 03:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
josh, there is more at stake with abortion rights than simply what would happen to unwanted babies should anti-choicers get their way.

It's about a woman's right to decide whether or not her body is going to be used as an incubator. It's about a woman's right not to have to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want to go through with.

I believe that anyone who refuses to take that into account, even people who are consistent on one level at being anti-choice AND anti-capital punishment, are not holding a "principled" view. Why? Because they believe in forcing women to bear children they don't want. They are the enemy of every woman who believes in the autonomy of, and control over, her own body.

Unless you believe that men should be able to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies and enslave them through reproductive means, then you can't believe that a man who is anti-choice is holding a principled view. I'm sorry, but you just can't. It is fully incompatible.

I'm sorry to continue to this thread drift, but I think you're treading on thin ice by going down this road. I know you're pro-choice and you fully support a woman's right to choose abortion. I know that in the US and in so-called progressive political circles the dialogue around abortion is different than it is here, and that you're probably on the left edge of the Democrats. But you've got to know that if you're going to try to argue here on babble, a Canadian discussion forum full of Canadian feminists, that it's somehow "principled" to hold anti-abortion views, you're going to be in for a rough ride.

My advice? Drop the thread drift before we feminists get on your ass in a serious way.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 February 2007 03:31 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Principled" doesn't mean that I agree with the position, or think that it's superior. It just means, to me, that it is honestly held and sincerely arrived at. Hentoff is such an individual, as are his views on "life" issues even though I don't agree with them. The issue here is Hentoff, not abortion.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 21 February 2007 03:37 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That would make George W. Bush a "principled" man.

So what value is there in using "principled" as a term of praise?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 February 2007 03:40 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's your opinion. I don't think Bush sincerely arrived at a particular view in his life. You must also factor in character as well. The character of the two men could not be more different.

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca