What can I say? Maybe that a Liberal Senator and our dear Hedi Fry sitting beside her as she made the comments is an embarassment.

These comments, however passionate the commentator is about her cause, are a tremendous mistake given the fact that she said all of this less than three weeks after 6000 people were killed.

Before people jump on me for my opinion here, I am not suggesting that she not have the right to make those comments, but rather, this would be the worst time to have made them.

This goes under the "am she on drugs or what?" department.

I notice Alexa's comments at the end of the article - FER CRYIN OUT LOUD ALEXA! WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM WITH TAKING A STAND FOR ONCE? This is another example of why she really sucks as a leader. GAWD!

Every other federal politician condemns the remarks and Alexa wants to build a bridge.

quote:

---

"Today in the world, the United States is the most dangerous and the most powerful global force unleashing horrific levels of violence," Thobani said, receiving a standing ovation.

---

And many people believe that to be true, Wagepeace. So what, now people who disagree with you are on drugs? No one is allowed to criticize US foreign policy and militarism any more? I've seen some pretty nasty, hateful stuff coming out from the warmongers on the right lately as well. What are we supposed to do if we don't approve of war, Wagepeace? Sit still and shut up? Suddenly freedom of speech isn't allowed anymore when it doesn't coincide with the political view that you and the government are trying to put forward?

Landon Pearson who was the Senator seated beside Thobani had this to say, and I have to agree with her:

quote:

---

"I thought it was a manipulative rant, First of all, I don't think this is the moment to come out with an anti-American rant. Secondly, I don't think you use that kind of language. You don't talk about a blood-stained foreign policy. That's the same kind of language that the terrorists use, for heaven's sake."

---

I am trying to find the author of this quote but it is pretty good.

quote:

---

"The Americans have made some mistakes, there's no questions about that. But under no circumstance would I say that what the Americans have done is the moral equivalent of what Osama bin Laden has done."

---

Rats. Well anyway, Michelle - I am not criticizing her right to say what she did - she has that right however baked her comments are.

The trouble is that her comments could not have come at a worse time and, as a result, are a tremendous embarassment for Canadians, the women's movement, etc.

Again - she can say what she wants to say, but one has to be on drugs to feel that the timing of the comments is appropriate.

Sorry for the off topic nonsense- This thread may now proceed as regularly scheduled.

[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: Captaffy ]

p.s.

quote:

---

The two nuclear bombs they dropped sure seemed to be at least the equivilant of Osoma's horrible act. So do the random bombings and trade tarrifs of Iraq that are killing 4000 people a month.

---

Word.

quote:

---

The trouble is that her comments could not have come at a worse time and, as a result, are a tremendous embarassment for Canadians, the women's movement, etc.

---

Well, first of all, maybe you should let women decide whether their movement feels embarassed by her words. I certainly don't.

Secondly, she wasn't speaking for all Canadians. She was giving her opinion of the situation as an individual Canadian feminist, not on behalf of every Canadian feminist. It's a pretty pedestrian understanding of "feminism" on your part if you think that every feminist represents every other feminist, and that everyone in the women's movement agrees with each other completely on every single issue. If you think she represents all feminists then that's your lack of understanding and therefore your problem, not the problem of feminists. However, some (probably many) feminists DO support her views, including me. By the way, this woman is a professor, and it's her job to think critically about issues like these, no matter how much people like you would like her to check her brain at the door and follow blindly when Dubya says "jump".

Thirdly, I don't think her words could have come at a BETTER time, now that the US is talking about military action against a country without offering proof of their involvement in a criminal action. So, Wagepeace, when are we allowed to talk about blood-soaked foreign policy of the US? Why are atrocities committed by Middle Eastern terrorists fair game for discussion, but American atrocities are not? Because of the close proximity of this attack? Baloney. No one has been shy about talking about the atrocities of terrorists in the Middle East while thousands of Iraqi children starve, or right now while millions of Afghans are trapped and starving within their borders.

And don't tell me that "blood soaked" is the language of terrorists. Suddenly we aren't even allowed to use imagery anymore. The terrorists may also state that the sky is blue, and while I don't agree with killing people to make that point, it doesn't mean that the sky ISN'T blue. I've heard a hell of a lot nastier imagery than "blood-soaked policy" coming from the right-wing war mongers out there in the last few weeks - in fact, right on this board, when people start calling anti-globalization protesters terrorists.

IF there are 4000 Iraqi kids dying a month, why hasn't the UN said anything? Easy to blame some country other than the Iraqi government. Secondly, IF there are 4000 Iraqi kids dying every month and Iraq has oil, wouldn't Hussein, the wacky dictator, have used some of the money made on oil to feed them? Get real. Tell me that if Canada had oil like Iraq, they wouldn't use the money on sales to improve living conditions and so forth? I don't believe that 4000 Iraqi kids are dying as a result of the Gulf War. Ever thought that their medical system isn't up to code of the West?

quote:

---

"Today in the world, the United States is the most dangerous and the most powerful global force unleashing horrific levels of violence," Thobani said, receiving a standing ovation.

---

???? Okay. Like Atta, Bin Laden and his cronies did was nothing? Thobani, with her selective memory, should be condemning the Taliban. We're learning bit by bit how much of an attack they were planning to carry out. They wanted to use chemical weapons on everybody. Man, woman and child. The WTC and Pentagon was only one part of the bigger plan. She wants horrific levels of violence? She should be teleported back in time to 1994 in Rowanda (sp) when hundreds and hundreds of innocent men, women and children were being macheted to death. THAT'S horrific violence to me. 1000 Chinese people a month are being executed by the Chinese government for all sorts of things. Some of them, they're being killed for the pettiest of crimes. No fair trial. THAT'S horrific violence. The US said and maintain that any military action, they do not want civillians to be harmed. Is that the talk of butchers? When Hussein rolled his tanks into Kuwait and killing some Kuwaitis fleeing, that's not butchery?

Michelle - There is a line between criticizing a government and going overboard. Let's say she didn't use the words "soaked in blood" in her premenstrating(sp) rant and "the end and destruction of the West" then that's one thing. But to say those comments at a time like this is bad. Well, if she wants to see the end of the West, perhaps she should voluntarily move back to her country of origins and lead an anti-west demonstration. If she loathes the west so much, why is she in Canada? Another case to me is not sticking to her principles. And yes, her words are words of terrorists.

The sad thing is, her comments puts the feminist movement in a bad light. With her words, some people who support the feminist movement may have second thoughts and may not want to support it anymore. My reaction was "well, if the feminist movement wants to move ahead, they'll need the support from people who sympathize with their cause, not just from women." I have debated in my mind whether or not if I want to bother supporting some womens' causes in light of her words. Am I saying going into the complete opposite? No. Perhaps taking a "don't care anymore" attitude.

Thobani's comments are the words of one feminist but doesn't speak for all feminists or women of Canada.

Clockwork - Great cartoon. Nothing could be more further from the truth.

That being said, it is hard to take Professor Thobani seriously. She takes the position, all-to-common amongst the Left, that if the United States is not saintly pure, then ergo, it is the Great Satan. This puerile posturing is silly, for no nation or society in the world is untainted if you carefully scrutinize its history in an unbiased manner. Swedes are peaceful? Think again, once you examine their actions over, say, at least five hundred years.

I guess I could take Professor Thobani more seriously if she devoted time condemning the extreme bloodshed of other modern regimes. How about that Joseph Stalin -- demographers estimate he killed at least 15 MILLION citizens of the Soviet Empire. How about Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Rwandan tragedy (Thobani would probably blame the U.S. for those blood lettings -- you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, if you happen to be the American administration.)

I would also add that taking the lives of the innocent is never justified, and I find it rather disgusting that someone would say "well they're worse because they killed more". Stalin once said "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic". I've asked this question before, and I'll ask it again; Is that how we want to view international relations? Is this how we want to view HUMAN relations?!?! Call me crazy, but I'm of the belief that a million deaths are a million tragedies, a million times over

Let's not argue over who should change first, let's come together and MAKE them change, NOW.

The all-time champeen among the ones I know is La Marseillaise -- I was going to quote and translate, but this is SO much more fun! I'm just gonna keep playing this over and over. (Their translation is a little mild, IMHO.) It's those furrows drenched with the bellowing enemy soldiers' impure blood that always gets the adrenaline running for me.

My very favourite national song (not their anthem, quite) is the Welsh battle-song "Men of Harlech." It's pretty fierce too, although it's like the French version of O Canada -- it avoids the graphic by referring to "glory" (when skewering the enemy is meant).

And could a Scot leave this topic without quoting "Scots wha' hae" :

Scots wha' hae wi' Wallace bled
Scots wham Bruce has often led
Welcome tae y'r gory bed
Or tae victory!

Why didn't that work? I'll try again:
La Marseillaise

quote:

---

Michelle - There is a line between criticizing a government and going overboard. Let's say she didn't use the words "soaked in blood" in her premenstrating(sp) rant and "the end and destruction of the West" then that's one thing. But to say those comments at a time like this is bad. Well, if she wants to see the end of the West, perhaps she should voluntarily move back to her country of origins and lead an anti-west demonstration. If she loathes the west so much, why is she in Canada? Another case to me is not sticking to her principles. And yes, her words are words of terrorists.

---

Um, that would be prementruating.

I cannot believe that we are sinking to these stereotypes again.

Can wimmin not discuss the fate of the planet without someone telling us we are on the rag?

(Oh, and for the record, it's not that time in my cycle. )

Do those from other places of origin (and that would be everyone but the Indiginous Peoples of Canada) not have the right to call their government on its policies?

I think Ms. Thobani was a brave womyn to stand up and say what she believes is true, even as she knew that some people would be ready to burn her at the stake over it.

I was proud when she was the head of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and I am equally proud that she addressed wimmin with such honesty and spirit.

As for people (i.e. men, right wing wimmin, ???) who will not support "feminists" now - really, were they going to in the first place? I'd rather have a feminism in Canada that was edgy, that was unafraid of telling truths, than have a feminism that bowed to the will of the patriachy.

Oh, and when you say that her words were the words of the terrorists, do you mean the international terrorists (i.e. those who hijack planes and create military actions) or domestic terrorists (those who batter wimmin and work to keep wimmin's religions down).

Just curious.

quote:

---

The NDP corrupt, no, they would need money for that. Incompetent, maybe. Of course they could worst, they could be the greens.

---

Hmm, I assumed they were at the beck and call of the major unions.

Debout les damnés de la terre
Debout les forçats de la faim
La raison tonne en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la fin
Du passes faisons table rase
Foules, esclaves, debout, debout
Le monde va changer de base
Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout

C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous, et demoain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain (bis)

Il n'est pas de sauveurs suprêmes
Ni Dieu, ni César, ni tribun
Producteurs, sauvons-nous nous-mêmes
Décrètons le salut commun
Pour que le voleur rende gorge
soufflons nous-mêmes notre forge
Battons le fer quand il est chaud

refrain

L'état comprime et la loi triche
L'impôt saigne le malheureux
Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche
Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux
C'est assez, languir en tutelle
L'égalité veut d'autres lois
Pas de droits sans devoir dit-elle
Egaux, pas de devoirs sans droits

refrain

Hideux dans leur apothèose
Les rois de la mine et du rail
Ont-ils jamais fait autre chose
Que dévaliser le travail
Dans les coffres-forts de la bande
Ce qu'il a crée s'est fondu
En décrétant qu'on le lui rende
Le peuple ne veut que son dû

refrain

Les rois nous saoulaient de fumées
Paix entre nous, guere aux tyrans
Appliquons la grêve aux armées
Crosse en l'air, et rompons les rangs
S'ils s'obstinent, ces cannibales
A faire de nous des héros
Ils sauront bientôt qu nos balles
Sont pour nos prores généraux

refrain

Ouvriers, Paysans, nous sommes
Le grand parti des travailleurs
La terre n'appartient qu'aux hommes
L'oisif ira loger ailleurs
Combien, de nos chairs se repaissent
Mais si les corbeaux, les vautours
Un de ces matins disparaissent
Le soleil brillera toujours!

refrain

-------------------------------------

Skdadl: The French lyrics (above) for the International are QUITE more violent than the English ones, and even the English (Canadian version) ones are pretty blood thirsty!

Anyway, thought you'd all enjoy the lyrics, if you know the tune, that is.

quote:

---

IF there are 4000 Iraqi kids dying a month, why hasn't the UN said anything?

---

As for the UN, it's just a giant white elephant. By the way, there are 1600 kids starving in my city. We should blame the US for that as well. Oh yeah. Haley's Comet won't be back this way for another 50+ years. Let's blame the US. This is a common bit of wisdom, "don't believe everything you hear."

And a potshot at Thobani, hey, Sunera, I think it's time for you to throw out your maxipad cos it's time for a fresh one.

The most regressive, misogynistic regime in the world is probably the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not considered part of the West (in fact, the Talibans loathe the West and Western values).

So ... according to Professor Thobani, if Western culture (the type of culture we find in the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden et al) were to crumble, women around the world would rejoice in the splendour of their newfound freedom.

I shudder to think what type of "freedom" would exist, for women world-wide, if the values of the Taliban were to prevail.

Why don't you grow up? Attack arguments with arguments, not sexist, bull shit, cheap shots.

quote:

---

Why don't you grow up?

---

Would you have the freedom to criticize the government in those countries? D-Uh!!

It might be important to remember that we do live in a free country, and again, Thobani has the right to make herself look like a ploitical science imbecile at taxpayers expense.

The fact that as a tax payer, I funded that conference is a fucking embarassment and I am really pissed about that, well, maybe not. Perhaps it was worth the money to see her become persona-non-grata in full public view.

quote:

---

Let's say she didn't use the words "soaked in blood" in her premenstrating(sp) rant

---

quote:

---

hey, Sunera, I think it's time for you to throw out your maxipad cos it's time for a fresh one.

---

quote:

---

Don't know about the state of her pads, but I certainly worry about the state of her mind.

---

One of the more obvious, simple facts of life is that few women grow either faint or feather-brained at the sight or mention of blood, since that would be impractical.

And we all understand that we must be understanding to some men, for whom female realities of the simplest kind remain powerfully mixed up with unresolved personal psychodramas -- which is why, faced with arguments they can't answer, some will revert to reminding a woman debater that she is a sexual being and that's all that matters about her.

Some men will cast that insult as a "compliment" (She: What did you think of my award-winning novel? He: You've got a cute ass.). The more deeply disturbed will reveal themselves by flinging one straightforward feminine reality or another back at women as though it were a mucky repulsive thing.

What else could tempt JCL to risk violating repeatedly the agreement he signed when he joined Babble?

And then along comes his allies JCL and la lance. Two boys without the qualifications to be men. Who add to misnomer's attack in the most despicable way. One could only think the Taliban would be proud. And what does misnomer have to say about his two allies attack on ALL women? Nothing. Nada. Not a thing. Apparently Canada is a free country, for them.

I am glad my freedoms are not dependent on people such as misnomer and his friends. They should be grateful, women like the one they attacked, will always defend theirs. But somehow, I do not believe thay are intelligent enought to see it.

You need to READ, READ!

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Perhaps some chalk drawings, would that help?

quote:

---

I funded that conference

---

Finally I would like someone to explain why criticism of foreign policy is "hateful". I foolishly believe debate and dissent to be healthy.

quote:

---

The fact that as a tax payer, I funded that conference is a fucking embarassment and I am really pissed about that, well, maybe not. Perhaps it was worth the money to see her become persona-non-grata in full public view.

---

So you funded the whole conference, did you, Wagepeace, with YOUR tax dollars? So only conferences that have YOUR political viewpoint should be funded?

Isn't that a typical statement that some men have ALWAYS used against women when they want to get taxpayer funding for their conferences. Not with MY tax dollars.

Well bullshit. They weren't just YOUR tax dollars that went toward this conference, Wagepeace. They were also MY tax dollars, and Skdadl's tax dollars, and Audra's tax dollars, and Judy Rebick's tax dollars, and JudyM's tax dollars, and earthmother's tax dollars, and WingNut's tax dollars, and nonesuch's tax dollars, and the tax dollars of many other women and men who participated with the conference or agreed with the opinions expressed at it. So don't get on your high horse and act as if no one is allowed to spend tax dollars unless they agree with YOUR political ideology. Because, quite frankly, I would be very upset if everyone's tax dollars only went toward your political viewpoint instead of towards many different conferences of many different political stripes.

I don't have any problem with Thobani and the others having their voices heard on the public dime (if in fact it was funded by the public). People of your opinion are having their voices broadcast by elected MP's (on the public dime), mainstream press (on the corporate dime), and by private, right-wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute (also on the corporate dime - and possibly on the public dime, although I'm not sure about that). And there are lots of professors who are rabidly right-wing as well - I don't see you complaining about them being subsidized by the public to spew their political ideology.

edited to add, hehe, I'm going back in time to inform everyone that G&M article links are too long so I don't link... and relogged, tsk, tsk, now my thread display is all ugly!

Edited to say:
The link is too effing long for UBB.

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: relogged ]

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: relogged ]

[Edited to take out the "too effing long" link since it doesn't work and was causing side scroll. Michelle]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

It's no embarassment for tax dollars to be funding dissent, Wagepeace; if public funds only went towards promoting what the government approved of, well, we call that propaganda. A healthy democracy allows for it debate, encourages disagreement. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's in the govt's interest to keep the debate heard; otherwise it goes underground and then they don't know what they're up against.

quote:

---

Besides which, we've long been told that menstruating women have higher levels of testosterone than at other times in their cycle, making them ergo, MORE LIKE MEN! So shut your stupid traps about it.

---

I ain't outraged that the conference received gov't money. I just hope that I can get the gov't to chip in with some dough if/when I have something to say.

If you suppress opinions you disagree with, they fester and multiply. Imagine how angry, and perhaps dangerous, Thobani would be if the gov't tried to forbid her from speaking. She'd raise bloody hell, and then where would you be?

If you try to suppress people you disagree with, you just end up helping them. If you let them speak out loud, they expose themselves to criticism. Wouldn't you rather your "enemies" be out in the open?

Feel free to organize a conference of people who take the opposite opinions of the Thobanis and the Frys of the world, and apply to the government for funding. If they refuse to chip in because you're being "politically incorrect", THAT's when I'd start to feel outraged.

(Edit: I use the word "you" a lot in this post, but it isn't directed at anyone in particular. I just wanted to make that clear.)

I'm half-inclined to haul out my high horse and scream that it's not bashing to point out the girls shouldn't be beaten up for (theoretically) sometimes acting how the boys (theoretically) act all the time. Probably the message would have been better if I hadn't been yelling, eh?

quote:

---

I am not suggesting that she not have the right to make those comments, but rather, this would be the worst time to have made them.

---

quote:

---

And a potshot at Thobani, hey, Sunera, I think it's time for you to throw out your maxipad cos it's time for a fresh one.

---

Don't get me wrong. Disagree with her? Say so. Attack her arguments. But do not queestion her right to speak out whenever or however she wants. That is free speech.

In the U.S. journalists are being fired, bot left and right, for the contents of their reports and/or columns. Just bad timing? Or silencing critics? You cannot, aparently, joke about GWB in the U.S. media today. Until when? Isn't that similar to Taliban directives?

quote:

---

And extremist feminists aren't male bashers?

---

Without raising my voice, I'd like to approach this thought head on. I am willing to concede that there may be some 'extremist feminists' who are male bashers. I don't know any, but that's just me.

I'm not even sure how to understand male bashing - is being critical of a patriarchal society and its structures male bashing? If it is, well, bust me. But, if that is what male bashing is, then its corollary, female bashing, should reflect a similar critique of female-run societal structures.

But if male bashing means castigating men for their physical characteristics, for their bodily functions over which they have no control, there's been none of that on this thread.

[aside: Even the testosterone crack that I made doesn't fall into that category - I wasn't suggesting that it's bad to be a man, just that women shouldn't be insulted for behaving like men. It's only if you consider being a man a bad thing that it becomes an insult. (And I've already admitted to losing my temper, so cut me some slack, please.) end aside]

But if that is how we're defining male bashing, then we have seen plenty of its corollary here.

You're right though, 'misandrist' (not 'misanthrope'?) does seem more accurate. I was using the language that had been presented in the thread for continuity.

[edited to add: skdadl, it seems clear that we call them 'pissed off!' ]

quote:

---

skdadl, it seems clear that we call them 'pissed off!

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

And extremist feminists aren't male bashers?

---

So you're saying that because some "extremist" feminists (who I have yet to meet), that did not post here on babble, may "man-bash", as you put it, it's therefor okay for you to "woman-bash"?

Yes, that's right! You get 7 rolling-eyed green smilies! I didn't want it to come to this, but you asked for it!

(The only reason you didn't get 8 was because I needed that "big grin" one)

Wagepeace: Well I HEAVILY resent my GST dollars going to weapons of destruction, and the war mongers in DND!!!!

quote:

---

And what do we call women who were feeling just fine towards the world, men and women both...

---

Where, oh where did I put my fava beans and chianti?

I digress.

There are so many concerned with people who spout off on the taxpayer's dime, I guess I will have no trouble directing their ire to where it would be better deserved in the service of liberty; at the Red Chamber and the tapeworms that dwell within.

I'm astounded. Licia Corbella quoted? The darling lass of the silver spoon set? What was the thrust, and the thrust of many here?
"Go back where you came from, Thobani" Geez, how many skinheads did Corbella have to poll to come up with that reasoned response?

Few took time to respond to Thobani's comments without resorting to the ad hominem. (ad feminem? help me, latin pedants!)

I am certainly not a fan of the women's studies circuit, with all due respect to Michelle and others. From my reading and experience it seems dominated by post modernists, and convenient disregard of facts seems to dominate with that philosophy.

But, lets look at the facts. However mellodramatic Thobani might have been, her position is unassailable, and I suggest that the ad hominem attacks are an admission of this.

The period of mourning for the 7000 killed on the 11th, the majority of them innocent, has been duly observed, marked, and it is over; so these arguments about "timing" do not pass muster with me.

Are we to deffend our liberty from terrorists by destroying it ourselves for them?

They'd laugh, if they knew.

But, as that great thinker, George W. Bush said, (maybe even words written by that paragon of reason, David Frum) "If yer not fer us, yer agin us." So I guess all us dissenters are terrorists.

And, of course, only a witch deffends a witch.

"If Licia Corbella walked into a room full of wet behind the ears bimbonic wannabe aristo windbagettes, within five minutes they'd be pointing at her and saying "who's the wet behind the ears bimbonic wannabe aristo windbagette?"

Or,

"If the price of stupid ideas ever hits $40.00 a barrel, then I want the drilling rights to Licia Corbella's head."

Those are just examples of ad feminem attacks. They are for illustration purposes only, and should not be used.

I find them beneath me.

They should get tax dollars accordingly.
Share whatever goes to the other left wing organizations such as that one for policy alternatives. They should not get any funds based on the false pretense that they represent women.

Whats sad is that NOW masquerades as a group that represents womens issues.

quote:

---

NOW masquerades as a group that represents womens issues.

---

Of course he's talking about equal pay, proper protection and services and the like. Is it wrong for a man to speak his mind on a womens group? Or maybe there should be a mens' group and that if a woman makes a comment about that group, would I say "What do you know about mens' groups?"

I find that a large portion of issues in society today is a common good cause. But with always a few sticking points.

Now, as I said, I grew up in a Christian home. And that how I saw my dad treat my mom is the way all women should be treated. My dad never belittles her or oppresses her or any of the stereotypical view from the left towards people on the right or to Christians. But, yes, there are a few married and non-married couples I know who are Christians but the woman in the relationship is oppressed. A good female friend of mine got married to this guy but he won't allow her to visit her friends or go somewhere alone to do whatever. He totally keeps her oppressed and it pisses me off when I see men treat women in that aspect. They are not "property" or something on a leash. They have their own minds, views/opinions and the same amount of rights as anyone. They have a right to vote or get a job of their choosing or go to school or what not.

The only issues that my views conflict w/ womens' group is always the hotly contested debate on abortion which point life is conceived. At conception or birth? I've stopped discussing this issue long time ago and there's no point. Everyone has a position on it.

Now, going deeper into the issue of abortion, is it a woman's right to decide or not with what happens to the embryo. This is a grey area of abortion to me. Yes, she does. But doesn't the father have a right as well since that was his lucky shot that hit the mark? If the woman and the guy are still married or a couple or common law, then I suppose he should have a say. But if he abandoned her when he found out she got pregnant, then it is up to the woman. Again, this is an aspect of the issue that I don't want to debate/discuss since there are other factors in that as well.

Another grey area for me is, if the baby is going to have long term health problems, such as being mentally handicapped or what not and they want to abort the baby? Again, medical science may come up with a cure and then again, maybe not for another century. But, is it right? I was born with a hearing loss in my right ear and also had cerebral palsy. When I was born, the docs didn't think I'd ever have a normal life. I beat the odds and have gone way beyond what they thought my life would be or have turned out. I'm not in a wheelchair or use crutches or what not (except for a hearing aid) and I drive a car, play hockey (a lot of it I may add) and cycling. That's where that aspect is a grey area. Would the kid turn out to be a vegetable or would the kid beat out the odds like I did?

My last grey area on abortion, what if my teenaged daughter is raped and is pregnant? Do I say my daughter keeps the baby or abort it so the kid doesn't grow up to know that he/she was the offspring of a rapist? Or would keeping the child just be a psychological pain on my daughter for as long as she lives and relives the nightmare. Or the last option, give the baby up for adoption so it gets a chance to live a life and in a home where the kid may or may never know how he/she was conceived.

The other issue of womens' issue I don't agree with is that some feminists, especially the militant feminists who blame men for everything and complain about it instead of doing something about it. Or that some of the militant ones are out to turn the tables on men where the men are the subjugated ones.

I just have to giggle thinking of all the things I personally know about that were paid for by tax money. ohh if wagepeace et al only knew..
<= [ive never used one of those before, I don't know if it is me]

of course it doesn't make up for all the racists, sexist and otherwise oppressive and exploitative shit that tax money has also gone to..

quote:

---

Sunera Thobani
We hate to join in the hysteria that's surrounded the recent speech by the former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which has included Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day calling on the government to formally convey to the United States its disagreement with her views, but at the same time it's also difficult to ignore such remarkable political stupidity.

The fact that Thobani criticized American foreign policy is not, in and of itself, in any way reprehensible, though the timing of such criticisms might have been somewhat ill-advised. But by suggesting that "the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood" and that it is linked to the tragic attacks on New York and Washington last month, she displayed a startling ignorance of what is appropriate under current circumstances.

Above all else, Thobani canceled out any intelligent points that she might have had by overstating her case so dramatically. There are questions to be asked about American foreign policy, and there are appropriate ways to ask them. But whereas her arguments could have been engaging and thought-provoking, she went so far overboard that they will only be remembered for being offensive - and in the process, she finally provided us with some of that "latent anti-Americanism" that we've been hearing so much about lately.

---

Hey - Alexa made the list too!

quote:

---

Alexa McDonough
We're all for restraint in the Middle East, and it's certainly important that all major perspectives - including the pacifist one - be represented in the House of Commons. But with that said, it's still incumbent upon party leaders to remain connected to reality - and too often lately, the New Democrat boss has appeared to be otherwise.

Does any rational person actually expect Osama bin Laden to be tried in a world court? Apparently, the NDP leader does, and it's by setting that type of goal that her party has descended into such irrelevance in recent years.

If McDonough were focusing her attention solely upon the well-being of Afghani civilians, for example, she'd be representing a significant constituency of Canadians who are legitimately concerned over that issue. But instead, she's somehow positioning herself as a defender of the rights of terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks, right down to demanding that the Prime Minister press the United States to submit its evidence against bin Laden to the United Nations.

At times over the past few weeks, McDonough has been unfairly targeted by hawks eager to make a scapegoat out of anyone with reservations about immediate, high-risk military action. But on occasion, she's also appeared ludicrously naïve, and has managed to marginalize her struggling party even more than usual.

---

I ask, in this age of punditry when hyperbole passes for talent, why does it suddenly become wrong?

And, since when is it wrong to ask for evidence?

The onus of proof lies with the person making the claim. The U.S. says Osama bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11th massacre.

It is clearly up to them to prove it, and prove it publically.

Does anyone realize that those who are following the rules of reasoned thought are being accused of somehow deffending terrorism?

Read Prof. Thobani's speech for yourself and compare it to how the media has portrayed her.

From the Vancouver Sun, October 3rd, 2001

We, and this "we" is really problematic. If we in the West are all Americans now, what are Third World women and Aboriginal women to do? If Canadians are Americans now, what are women of colour to do in this country? And I'm open to suggestions for changing this title, but I thought I would stick with it as a working title for getting my ideas together for making this presentation this morning.

I'm very glad that the conference opened with Tina (Tina Beads, of the Vancouver Rape Relief Women's Shelter) and I'm very glad for the comments that she made, but I want to say also, just (to) add to Tina's words here, that living (in) a period of escalating global interaction now on every front, on every level. And we have to recognize that this level and this particular phase of globalization is rooted in all forms of globalization in the colonization of Aboriginal peoples and Third World people all over the world. This is the basis. And so globalization continues to remain rooted in that colonization, and I think, recognize that there will be no social justice, no anti-racism, no feminist emancipation, no liberation of any kind for anybody on this continent unless Aboriginal people demand for self-determination.

The second point I want to make is that the global order that we live in, there are profound injustices in this global order. Profound injustices. Third World women...I want to say for decades, but I'm going to say for centuries, have been making the point that there can be no women's emancipation, in fact no liberation of any kind for women, will be successful unless it seeks to transform the fundamental divide between the north and south, between Third World people and those in the West who are now calling themselves Americans.

That there will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until the Western domination of this planet is ended.

Love thy neighbour. Love thy neighbour, we need to heed those words. Especially as all of us are being hoarded into the possibility of a massive war at the...of the United States. We need to hear those words even more clearly today. Today in the world the United States is the most dangerous and most powerful global force unleashing prolific levels of violence all over the world.

From Chile to El Salvador, to Nicaragua to Iraq, the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood. We have seen, and all of us have seen, felt, the dramatic pain of watching those attacks and trying to grasp the fact of the number of people who died. We feel the pain of that every day we have bee watching it on television.

But do we feel any pain for the victims of U.S. aggression? 200,000 people killed only in the initial war on Iraq. That bombing of Iraq for 10 years now. Do we feel the pain of all the children in Iraq who are dying from the sanctions imposed by the United States? Do we feel that pain on an every-day level? Share it with our families and communities and talk about it on every platform that is available to us? Do we feel the pain of Palestinians who now for 50 years have been living in refugee camps?

U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood. And other countries in the West, including shamefully, Canada, cannot line up fast enough behind it. All want to sign up now as Americans and I think it is the responsibility of the women's movement to stop that, to fight against it.

These policies are hell-bent on the West maintaining its control over the world's resources. At whatever cost to the people...Pursuing American corporate interest should not be Canada's national interest.

This new fight, this new war against terrorism, that is being launched is very old. And it is a very old fight of the West against the rest. Consider the language which is being used...

Calling the perpetrators evil-doers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy...Every person of colour, and I would want to say every Aboriginal person, will recognize this language. The language of us letting civilization representing the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy. It was used to justify our colonization by Europe...

We were colonized in the name of the West bringing civilization, democracy, bringing freedom to us. All of us recognize who is being talked about when that language is used. The terms crusade, infinite justice, cowboy imagery of dead or alive posters, we all know what they mean. The West, people in the West also recognize who this fight is against. Cries heard all over the Western world, we are all Americans now. People who are saying that recognize who the fight is against. People who are attacking Muslims, any person of colour who looks like they could be from the Middle East, without distinguishing, recognizing who this fight is against. These are not just slips of the tongue that Bush quickly tries to reject. These are not slips of the tongue. They reveal a thinking, a mindset. And it is horrific to think that the fate of the world hangs on the plans of people like that. This will be a big mistake for us if we just accept that these are slips of mind, just slips of the tongue. They're not. They reveal the thinking, and the thinking is based on dominating the rest of the world in the name of bringing freedom and civilization to it.

If we look also at the people who are being targeted for attack. A Sikh man killed? Reports of a Cherokee woman in the United States having been killed? Pakistan is attacked. Hindu temples attacked. Muslim mosques attacked regardless of where the Muslims come from. These people also recognize who this fight is against. And it is due to the strength of anti-racist organizing that Bush has been forced to visit mosques, that our prime minister has been forced also to visit mosques and say, no there shouldn't be this kind of attack. We should recognize that it is the strength of anti-racist organizing is forcing them to make those remarks.

But even...but even as they visit mosques, and even as they make these conciliatory noises, they are talking out of both sides of the mouth because they are officially sanctioning racial profiling at the borders, in the United States, for entrance into training schools, for learning to become pilots, at every step of the way. On an airplane, who is suspicious, who is not?

Racial profiling is being officially sanctioned and officially introduced. In Canada we know that guidelines, the Globe and Mail leaked, the guidelines were given to immigration officers at the border, who to step up security watch is on.

So on the one hand, they say no, it's not all Muslims, on the other hand they say yes, we are going to use racial profiling because it is reasonable. So we have to see how they are perpetrating the racism against people of colour, at the same time that they claim to be speaking out against it. And these are the conditions, the conditions of racial profiling. These are the conditions within which children are being bullied and targeted in schools, women are being chased in parking lots and shopping malls, we are being scrutinized as we even come to conferences like that, extra scrutiny, you can feel the coldness when you enter the airport. I was quite amazed. I have been travelling in this country for 10 years, and I have never had the experience that I had flying down here for this conference. All of us feel it. So this racial profiling has to be stopped.

Events of the last two weeks also show that the American people that Bush is trying to invoke, whoever they are these American people, just like we contest notions of who the Canadian people are, we have to recognize that there are other voices in the United States as well, contesting that. But the people, the American nation that Bush is invoking, is a people which is bloodthirsty, vengeful, and calling for blood. They don't care whose blood it is, they want blood. And that has to be confronted. We cannot keep calling this an understandable response. We cannot say yes, we understand that this is how people would respond because of the attacks. We have to stop condoning it and creating a climate of acceptability for this kind of response. We have to call it for what it is: Bloodthirsty vengeance.

And people in the United State, we have seen peace marches all over this weekend, they also are contesting this. But Bush is (the) definition of the American nation and the American people need to be challenged here. How can he keep calling them a democracy? How can we keep saying that his response is understandable after Bush of all people, who stole the election, how can we ever accept that this is democracy?

Canada's approach has been mixed, it has said yes, we will support the United States but with caution. It will be a cautionary support. We want to know what the actions will be before we sign on and we want to know this has been Canada's approach. And I have to say we have to go much further. Canada has to say we reject U.S. policy in the Middle East. We do not support it.

And it's really interesting to hear all this talk about Afghani women. Those of us who have been colonized know what this saving means. For a long time now, Afghani women, and the struggles they were engaged in, were known here in the West. Afghani women became almost the poster child for women's oppression in the Third World. And, rightfully so, many of us were in solidarity. Afghani women of that time were fighting against and struggling against the Taliban. They were condemning their particular interpretation of Islam. Afghani women, Afghanistan women's organizations were on the front line of this. But what (did) they become in the West? In the West they became nothing but poor victims of this bad, bad religion, and of (these) backward, backward men. The same old colonial construction. They were in the frontline, we did not take the lead from them then, where we could see them more as victims, only worthy of our pity and today, even in the United States, people are ready to bomb those women, seeing them as nothing more than collateral damage. You see how quickly the world can change. And I say that we take the lead from Afghani women. They fought back against the Taliban, and when they were fighting back they said that it is the United States putting this regime in power. That's what they were saying. They were saying, look at U.S. foreign policy!

They were trying to draw out attention to who was responsible for this state of affairs, to who was actually supporting regimes as women all over the Middle East had been doing. Sorry, just two more minutes and I'll be done. So I say we take the lead from them and even if there is no American bombing of Afghanistan, which is what all of us should be working right now to do, is to stop any move to bomb Afghanistan, even if there is no bombing of Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have already been displaced, fleeing the threat of war--you see the power of America here, right? One word in Washington and millions of people are forced to flee their houses, their communities, right? So, even if there is no bombing, we have to bear in mind how many women's lives have already been disrupted, destroyed, and will take generations for them to put back together again.

Inevitably, and very depressing in Canada is of course, turning to the enemy within--immigrants and refugees, right? Scapegoating of refugees, tighter immigration laws, all the right-wing forces in this community, in this country, calling for that kind of approach. This is depressing for women of colour, immigrant and refugee women, anything happens, even if George Bush was to get a cold, we know somehow it'll be the fault of immigrants and refugees in Canada, and our quote-unquote lax border policies. So I'm not going to say much about it, but I just want to expose you to how, this...continues to be resurrected anytime over anything in the world.

In terms of any kind of military action, Angela Davis (an American activist) asked in the '70s, she said, "do you think the men who are going to fight in Vietnam, who are going to kill Vietnamese women and children, who are raping Vietnamese women, do you think they will come home and there will be no effect of all of this? One women in the United States?" she was asking this in the 70s.

That question is relevant today. All these fighters that are going to be sent there, we think there will be no effect? For our women, when they come back here? So I think that that is something that we need to think about, as we talk about the responses, as we talk this kind of jingoistic military-ism. And recognize that, as the most heinous form of patriarchal, racist violence that we're seeing on the globe today. The women's movement, we have to stand up to this. There is no option. There's no option for us, we have to fight back against this militarization, we have to break the support that is being built in our countries for this kind of attack. We have to recognize that the fight is for control of the vast oil and gas resources in central Asia, for which Afghanistan is a key, strategic point!

There's nothing new about this, this is more of the same that we have been now fighting for so many decades. And we want to recognize, we have to recognize that the calls that are coming from progressive groups in the Third World, and in their supporters, in their allies, in the rest of the world, the three key demands they are asking for: End the bombing of Iraq, lift the sanctions on Iraq, who in this room will not support that demand? Resolve the Palestinian question, that's the second one. And remove the American military bases, anywhere in the Middle East. Who will not demand, support these demands?

We have to recognize that these demands are rooted in anti-imperialist struggle and that we have to support these demands. We need to end the racist colonization of Aboriginal peoples in this country, certainly, but we need to make common calls with women across the world who are fighting to do this. Only then can we talk about anti-racist, feminist politics, only then can we talk about international solidarity in women's movements across the world. And in closing, just one word--the lesson we have learned, and the lesson that our politicians should have learned, is that you cannot slaughter people into submission, for 500 years they have tried that strategy, the West for 500 years has believed that it can slaughter people into submission and it has not been able to do so, and it will not able to do so this time either.

Thank you very much.

Prof. Sunera Thobani

Her language may be somewhat strong in places, but there was certainly nothing in the speech that has not been expressed elsewhere many times by intelligent and even moderate critics of Western policies.

I do disagree with some of her points though. At one point towards the end, she writes:

"And we want to recognize, we have to recognize that the calls that are coming from progressive groups in the Third World, and in their supporters, in their allies, in the rest of the world, the three key demands they are asking for: End the bombing of Iraq, lift the sanctions on Iraq, who in this room will not support that demand? Resolve the Palestinian question, that's the second one. And remove the American military bases, anywhere in the Middle East. Who will not demand, support these demands?"

I found that passage odd because friends who work in the development and humanitarian fields have been telling me for years that progressive NGOs have been calling for debt relief, reform to the IMF/World Bank, trade policy reform and support for democratic reforms and respect for human rights. I didn't know that landless Zimbabwean farmers, unemployed Bolivian miners and Tamil school teachers were calling for an end to sanctions in Iraq.

But that's a small point, I am only bickering with a detail in Thobani's speech.

The main point is that her speech, while blunt, did not exceed the boundaries of legitimate public debate. I worry that there are forces in society that want to shut her up.

This brings me to my final point. Despite its flaws, we probably all cherish some of the more progressive core values of Western society (when it is at its best). Many of those progressive values are embodied in our Charter and in other documents: freedom of speech and association for example, peaceful settlement of disputes through publicly recognized standards of law, respect for academic freedom.

In coming up with a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, shouldn't we all strive - as much as possible - to act in a way that corresponds to those core values?

Thobani's contribution to the debate seems to me to fall clearly within the parameters of those values.

The virtue of living in a society like ours is that Thobani cannot (or should not) be punished or derided or silenced because of her exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Here it is: "From Chile to El Salvador, to Nicaragua to Iraq, the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood."

It seems to me that failure to mention the specific foreign policy activities being criticized is an effort to decontextualize the comment entirely. That way, people may more easily jump to the conclusion that Thobani was supporting the Taliban, or whoever.

It is a form of Memory Hole. Bloody episodes in the past are airbrushed out of the sentence because it would be inconvenient "at this time" to talk about them. it is a form of "infantilization of the public" (Susan Sontag). We see evidence of this in several of the posts supra, from people who are unwilling to think outside of stereotypes.

I too had been wondering why the negative reaction to Thobani had been so strong.

Rebick writes:

"Thobani has always enraged the chattering classes for her refusal to play the submissive role they expect from immigrant women of colour."

That probably goes a long way to explaining a lot of the fury.

I have read things by many commentators who have taken Thobani to task for the specific arguments and facts she used in her speech - this is what enlightened discussion and debate are all about. So we should all feel free to criticize Thobani, within the limits of respectful, albeit possibly vigorous, debate. Or we say in French, "discussion virile" (doesn't translate well)

And there are a few passages in that speech where I think she came close to minimizing the horror of September 11. But she never stepped over that line.

Also, what made me feel uncomfortable about her statements is that she did not seem to have very concrete ideas for how we should react. Yes, she does underline to need to fight any racist backlash and to oppose blind military lashing out in retaliation for the attacks. But she does not have any ideas to specifically address one of the immediate issues, which is how to ensure the physical security of citizens in countries or communities potentially targeted by the kind of terrorism exemplified by the Sept 11 attacks. I also felt her arguments were quite weak with regard to the immediate plight of Afghan refugees: how does she propose we respond?

Her arguments, while eloquent and powerful, were too blunt. She may be right overall about 500 years of relations between the West and other regions of the world. But, how does that guide us today? There seems to be growing evidence that groups like the Taliban and al Qaida have the capacity and will to undertake devastating attacks against targets they hate.

It is true, as many have pointed out on Babble and elsewhere, that Western aid (CIA) and policies have created fertile ground for the rise and spread of these kinds of religiously-motivated extreme-right wing organizations in the Middle East and Southern Asia. But even if Western governments bear a large share of responsibility, would Thobani deny that there is a threat of violence from these groups against innocent people like her, like me, like other readers of Babble, by virtue of the fact that we live here, get on planes, take elevators in high rises? Her speech was incredibly weak on this point. She only seemed to criticize any possible security precaution being proposed to ensure public safety. Again, many of her criticisms are quite valid (e.g. the risks of "racial profiling") but what does she propose?

quote:

---

Thobani canceled out any intelligent points that she might have had by overstating her case so dramatically. There are questions to be asked about American foreign policy, and there are appropriate ways to ask them. But whereas her arguments could have been engaging and thought-provoking, she went so far overboard that they will only be remembered for being offensive

---

I love this. It's the new, updated version of, "There, there, dear. It's not that what you're saying isn't important, you're just being too strident and shrill. Maybe if you expressed yourself in a more delicate, feminine manner, we would then be able to deal with the substance of your comments."

*devil's advocate mode*

OTOH, he didn't get government money to say them. Also, Bill Maher(sp?) DID get a LOT of grief for the things he's been saying, and he isn't a woman.

Still, with reference to the point I made about the decontextualization of the "soaked in blood" comment, read the article linked at the top of this thread. I think it is a very good example. The "soaked in blood" terminology appears only in the headline, and never in the body of the story.

As one example, I can recall instances during the 1995 Quebec referendum when male English-language federalists talked about Quebec nationalism in terms considered extreme (à la "all nationalism=fascism"). Others - English and French - would often respond that there were certainly worrisome aspects to certain forms of Quebec nationalist thinking but that the case was damaged by using overheated rhetoric to tar all nationalists with the same brush.

And since she was speaking as a feminist, and this HAS been a traditional weapon used against women who speak out for what they believe in, I think it is relevant. I realize men have been criticized for exaggeration as well. But there are tons of writers who are saying the same types of things that Thobani did - but it took a woman of colour saying it directly and forcefully before people like Stockwell Day finally had a perfect target. And for those who actually have READ her article and couldn't ignore the substance of her comments, they can always fall back on, "it's not what you said, but how you said it."

quote:

---

It would be a shame if this traitor had an automobile accident on the way home from her next speaking engagement, would't it?

Come on CSIS, do your duty! Rock her world and shake her booty! Wham bam turtle tell, send that bitch straight back to hell!

---

quote:

---

I wasn't talking about criticism in general. I was talking about this particular writer's specific criticism of her specific speech. And that criticism was that she may have had a point but that she didn't express it very well.

---

Point well taken. Still, the tone and mode of expression, the language and examples used in a speech are critical elements. Overall, as I indicated in some of my comments, I do not disagree with Thobani's message so much as with the lack of concrete proposals for how to deal with the many dimensions of the current situation. She is not simply an average citizen like you or me. She is, after all, a professor, a community leader, an intellectual and I believe that there is an ethical responsibility on the part of intellectuals to go beyond denunciation and to articulate principles of action. I found her speech lacking in that specific way.

Michelle also wrote:

quote:

---

I think it's extremely significant that Thobani, a feminist woman of colour, has become the lightning rod for the anger of the right.

---

Rebick, in the column alluded to earlier in this thread, eloquently expressed this idea. I agree, this seems to have a lot to do with the backlash.

Cheers.

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

I believe that there is an ethical responsibility on the part of intellectuals to go beyond denunciation and to articulate principles of action.

---

I disagree with this. There is a place in this world for critics. You don't have to suggest a solution every time you want to point out a problem. Sometimes, we don't know the solution. It doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

"I think it's extremely significant that Thobani, a feminist woman of colour, has become the lightning rod for the anger of the right. " (didn't know how to do you guys's fancy quotes, my apologies)

And they say feminism is a culture of victimhood? Perish the thought!!! If a woman says something factually innacurate, opportunistic and in bad taste... we should all applaud her because she must be a poor, oppressed "woman of color"?

Jerry Faldwell, a religious conservative, became a "lightening rod for the anger" of both the left and right a few weeks ago when he made odious and dispicable comments. Why is Tobani a "victim" because she takes advantage of 6000 deaths to further her cause, and gets grilled for it?

Okay, in response to your comments:

quote:

---

Oh yeah. I'm sure that there were a lot of "professional women" in Iraq. What a progressive country that is. Yep. Iraq. Afghanistan. Real beacons of the emanscipated women that Thobani speaks of. Yeah. Those women sure have wonderful, carefree lives under the sainthood of Saddam Hussein. The guy seen firing off a gun at some parade. By the way, Iraq is so bloody obvious that what they say is propaganda.

---

Don't display your ignorance, JCL, unless of course it gives you pleasure.

True, the position of women in Iraq has never been what it is in Canada. But prior to the Gulf War, Iraq, largely due to oil revenues, was a very prosperous, "modern" nation with a large professional middle class. It was not a theocracy. Included in this middle class was a considerable number of professional women. It's not propaganda to say so.

It is, however, propaganda, or rather rhetoric of the shallowest, shabbiest kind, to say "if you don't like it here, why don't you go back to [country X]." We heard that throughout the decades of the Cold War, and it looks like we must suffer it all again.

Furthermore, to say it to an immigrant smacks -- there's no other way to put it -- of racism.

Afghanistan can be seen as an example that supports Thobani's argument. It too once had a strong female workforce. American foreign policy backed Islamic extremists who took that ability away.

While Western women might enjoy more freedom than many women elsewhere, the point is that others who don't live in the West (men and women alike) do not enjoy such freedoms, and our foreign policy seems to indicate we want to keep it that way.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar ... these are oppressive states propped up by the U.S. They are countries known to be anti-democratic. Women in these countries don't enjoy many of the West's perks.

Yet they are considered allies.

quote:

---

Thobani has always enraged the chattering classes for her refusal to play the submissive role they expect from immigrant women of colour.

---

Oh please. One of my professors at school is an immigrant woman of color. No different if she was a white or male professor, Canadian born or not. Rebick loves using the "poor victim syndrome" of Thobani's remarks. Anyone who criticizes her is a cold hearted, racist, woman hating bastard. It's not the color of her skin or nationality that is drawing the criticism, it's the words she spoke.

quote:

---

I was wondering, how does Dennis J.'s post differ from a fatwa?
We shouldn't be subjected to this here on babble.

---

One example: Chile. A government is elected. Henry Kissinger doesn't like the government that is democratically elected. He arranges to pay extremists in that country to "kidnap" the military leader who supports Chile's democratic process. That leader is then murdered. Soon after, the elected leader of the country is dead.

Enter Pinochet, much death and long long years of dictatorship.

Brian, this isn't to explain away what happened on September 11. It is, however, an effort to understand why the West and its freedoms are not universally loved by those who pay a price for our privilege. Not everyone who has a justified grievance about Western foreign policies is a terrorist. And those grievances are not for things from the distant past.

Vietnamese children who were burned by Napalm could be in their mid-twenties and early thirties right now.

quote:

---

I was wondering, how does Dennis J.'s post differ from a fatwa?

---

I'd like to caution people against using this word to mean a death threat or death sentence.

It's been commonly understood that way in non-Muslim countries since the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa on The Satanic Verses (Feb. 14, 1989). But that's a gross mischaracterization, like referring to a Jerry Falwell rant as political analysis.

A fatwa is simply a religious opinion, an interpretation on a matter of law or doctrine, offered by a Muslim cleric. Khomeini's fatwa held that The Satanic Verses was blasphemous, but also that Rushdie therefore deserved death.

But more moderate clerics elsewhere claimed that this fatwa was invalid, because Muslim law enjoins Muslims to obey the laws of the lands they live in.

A fatwa is not justified if it is aimed at inciting followers to violate law, or so I understand. (In any case, the fatwa of a Shiite cleric, like Khomeini, is not necessarily binding on Sunni or other Muslims, but of course that's a secondary issue).

quote:

---

Right, Brian. Hitler and Musollini we're really ok guys. Same with bin Laden. We should be bargaining and appeasing these people. Peace without sacrifice or struggle...what a beutiful concept.

---

*WARNING*

GODWIN'S LAW INVOKED

By the way, people should do their research on what kind of leader Hussein is. He's a real "saint" alright. Or does the left love exploiting the suffering of kids to pretend they really "care" about those kids. The blood of those dead Iraqi kids is on the hands of Hussein. He has so much money, he could feed his country year in and year out. The man owns 17 palaces in Iraq while the people he oppresses live in sandhuts. Iraq had one of the world's 5 largest armies. He's swimming in money and yet does nothing to help his people.

Okay. We lift sanctions against Iraq and then I say we should recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan so the people get their food but at a cost of looking the other way when Hussein uses chemical weapons on refugees and the Taliban continues to enslave their country in fear.

As always, you are free to start a new one.

(Edited to indicate that I closed this before seeing JCL's post. JCL: I've written about Iraq and Kuwait elsewhere on the site. You are free to search for those writings.)