Author
|
Topic: Latin American rising, and leave Cuba out of it this time.
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 31 July 2007 09:30 PM
With pleasure, Fidel.Now back to the topic. Why can't we have immediate elections in Cuba, an end to censorship, the right to emigrate, education for women and girls, a ban on the Baathist party, and no more stoning for adultery? Oy vey, now I've gone and done it... ETA: And recognition of Israel's right to exist!! Whew. [ 31 July 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 01 August 2007 12:10 AM
I think Israel should recognize the right of Cuba to exist.And that all Marines should take a Baath(especially after they've been out in the sun all day). [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 01 August 2007 05:55 AM
quote: And that all Marines should take a Baath(especially after they've been out in the sun all day).
Ken, are you being rotten to the corps?
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 01 August 2007 06:21 AM
quote: Why can't we have immediate elections in Cuba, an end to censorship, the right to emigrate, education for women and girls, a ban on the Baathist party, and no more stoning for adultery?Oy vey, now I've gone and done it... ETA: And recognition of Israel's right to exist!!
That all sounds good to me except the banning of thre Ba'ath party. No party should ever be banned.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 06:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
That all sounds good to me except the banning of thre Ba'ath party. No party should ever be banned.
I know, that's why you were so angry when the Harper govt. was the first in the world to cut off funding when Hamas was elected, and why you have petitioned the Canadian government to remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the banned list here in Canada. Your openmindedness has not gone unnoticed.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 01 August 2007 08:18 AM
Posted by unionist: quote: I know, that's why you were so angry when the Harper govt. was the first in the world to cut off funding when Hamas was elected, and why you have petitioned the Canadian government to remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the banned list here in Canada.
Can't speak for Stockholm, but as a babbler who has on other threads criticized Cuba for its denial of basic civil liberties, I oppose the Harper government's decision to cut off funding to the Hamas led government in Palestine. As a political entity, Hamas did win power in a free and fair election, and as such, it should be engaged not ostracized. I'm opposed to political parties like Hamas having their own militias, but Fatah has them as well, so that should not have precluded engagement with Hamas. Finally, I'm not a fan of religiously-based political parties like Hamas (or Canada's own Christian Heritage Party for that matter) but that's not my call. That's the call of the Palestinian people at the ballot box. [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: John K ]
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 08:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Is the United States Democratic Party allowed to operate in Cuba?I mean, if Palestinian political parties must be free to operate in Canada; and if they don't Unionist pulls on a black armband to mourn democracy, the same must follow for everywhere else, no?
One of your problems (not to limit it too much here) is failing to understand that before we build democracy in someone else's home (especially uninvited), we should ensure it is alive in our own. Other countries (U.S., Cuba, Luxembourg, Seychelles, etc.) have every right to ban whatever the frig they please in their own land. It is none of your business, nor of mine. However, I am occasionally amused by shameless hypocrites who are capable of preaching democracy to "disadvantaged" "third world" types, while showing by their domestic attitudes that they have no clue what they are talking about. No wonder the "lesser races" respond to their charitable armed liberation missions with roadside bombs instead of floral garlands. So Sir, why not say what you think of my question? Do you support the banning of Hamas and Hezbollah in Canada, yes or no? As for what is banned in Cuba, I support the right of the Cubans to ban all U.S. parties, all Canadian parties, their own Communist Party, and any tourists who try to tell them how to live their lives.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 01 August 2007 08:56 AM
Unionist, I assume you're referring to Hizbullah and Hamas being listed as terrorist groups under the Anti-Terrorism legislation.My position is that states should have a monopoly on the use of military force because the alternative (warring non-state militias) is much worse. That's why free and fair elections are so important as a way of determining who citizens of states want their government to be. Hamas and Hizbullah should not be on the anti-terrorism list because they are legitimately elected entitities, though I do have a problem with them having their own militias. I'm not opposed to certain other non-state entities like Al Qaeda being on the list. The spectre of allowing Al Qaeda to openly raise money or recruit fighters in Canada goes beyond what even this civil libertarian finds acceptable. [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: John K ]
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 08:59 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: I don't have a problem with declaring armed militias to be illegal, but I think that political parties that are willing to play by the rules should be allowed - within the countries that they run in.
Amazing. Having stated: "No party should ever be banned."Stockholm heroically retreats as soon as one mentions parties that he doesn't particularly care for. He just redefines them as "armed militias" or "terrorists". Expect a congratulatory fax from Stevie Harper any day now.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:06 AM
Unionist, you are failing to draw an important distinction between groups like Hamas having a political wing and a military wing. For example, the Conservative party has every right to exist and contest elections, but I would be strongly opposed and alarmed if they decided to form an armed military wing.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:18 AM
quote: This is a moot point. Hamas and Hezbollah do not run candidates in Canadian elections and therefore there is nothing to "ban" or "not ban" here.
Neither does the Ba'ath party.
quote: That all sounds good to me except the banning of thre Ba'ath party. No party should ever be banned.
Do you even take yourself seriously?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by John K: Unionist, I assume you're referring to Hizbullah and Hamas being listed as terrorist groups under the Anti-Terrorism legislation.
I'm referring to the fact that it is unlawful under the Criminal Code of Canada to join Hamas or Hezbollah, contribute money to them, attend a peaceful meeting or demonstration organized by them, or participate in any activity of theirs whatsoever - "directly or indirectly". This is notwithstanding the fact that these organizations have never done anything to harm Canada. The sole reason for their illegalization is to lick the boots of the U.S. and show what devoted "friends" we are. I find it frankly sickening that anyone calling themselves "progressive" would seek to rationalize such actions at home, while lecturing others as to how they should not ban parties.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by John K: Unionist, you are failing to draw an important distinction between groups like Hamas having a political wing and a military wing.
I guess you mean the Canadian government is failing to draw any such distinction, don't you? Because Hamas and Hezbollah are banned in Canada - period. No "military wing", no "political wing". What are you actually thinking of? Here is the law as it was Gazetted in December 2002. Kindly explain what "distinction" you see in the law of Canada.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
An armed militia is NOT a party.
Hamas? Hezbollah? Are they parties? One is an elected government, the other has elected representatives and cabinet ministers. What does it take to be a party in your lexicon? You support the banning of these parties in Canada because your support for Israel trumps any fleeting affection you may have for "democracy" - as does your hatred for the Cuban government, and certain other hangups of yours. That would be marginally more tolerable if you simply stated your biases rather than dressing them up as support for "democracy". Such support must begin at home.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:56 AM
Posted by unionist: quote: I find it frankly sickening that anyone calling themselves "progressive" would seek to rationalize such actions at home, while lecturing others as to how they should not ban parties.
Did you even bother to read my posts above before hitting the reply button? I made it abundantly clear that I opposed Hamas and Hizbullah being listed as terrorist entities under the Anti-Terrorism Act and stated why. And since you raised it, I further agree that an entity should pose either a credible threat to Canadian security or international security in order to be listed.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 01 August 2007 10:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
These "parties' don't run candidates in canadian elections, so there is nothing to ban.
Yes, but Canada was among the first countries to cut funding to Hamas after defeat of Fatah in recent elections. This in spite of observers suggesting those elections were free and fair.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 10:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by John K:
Did you even bother to read my posts above before hitting the reply button?
Indeed I do, and carefully at that. My "sickening" reference was to Stockholm's position, not yours. quote: And since you raised it, I further agree that an entity should pose either a credible threat to Canadian security or international security in order to be listed.
Good - thank you for clarifying your position. Now it should be equally clear why parties like the Republicans and Democrats, both of which have organized or supported armed invasions or similar sabotage of Cuba, should be forever banned there. ETA: By the way, you haven't answered my question. Why did you charge me with failing to distinguish between political and military wings? Canadian law does not do so. [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 11:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Whether Canada wants to "fund" or "not fund" a foreign country is a totally discretionary matter.
You are absolutely correct. Canada is under no obligation to fund or not fund the Palestinian Authority or anyone else (subject to respecting whatever agreements we may sign). However, when Canada uses funding to abort democracy in Palestine and starve Palestinians into submitting to the "right" party, it speaks volumes about the respect that the Canadian government (and its supporters in this thread) has for self-determination.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 01 August 2007 11:03 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Whether Canada wants to "fund" or "not fund" a foreign country is a totally discretionary matter.
We're not talking about "funding countries" as is the case with aid money. There's absolutely nothing improper about that. Unless of course, it's covert CIA funding to aid Sunni militia groups alleged to be cozy with al Qaeda and using the Lebanese government as a conduit. Are we for or against racist regimes aiding and abetting proxy terrorists ?. Or what ? quote: In the 80s, we chose not to "fund" South Africa because they elected a government of white supremacists!
What were former Canadian Gerald Bull and CIA, and MI6 and Mossad doing to discourage S. Africa's racist regime besides aiding and abetting them with covert wars abroad ?. [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 01 August 2007 11:17 AM
quote:
My position is that states should have a monopoly on the use of military force because the alternative (warring non-state militias) is much worse. That's why free and fair elections are so important as a way of determining who citizens of states want their government to be.
I'm taking this quote somewhat out of context but it does touch on the notion of democracy as a kind of assumed mitigation for state aggression. I'm not attacking the poster as my interpretation may not be the poster's intent. ----- In this era of the neocon propagandist, Johnsons 18th Century aphorism: Patriotism is last refuge of the scoundrel has morphed into: Democracy is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Operation Iraq Liberation Operation Iraqi Freedom ---the shibboleth democracy is a cloak for imperialism, massive slaughter, terrorism, for South America as for the other targets of Empire. We are to bow with holy silent reverence at the mere mention of the word democracy It is expected to trump any real sense of human decency. The deification of a deformed, spin doctored and media-managed, western style democracy is put forward as the touchstone of moral authority: In Times square you can usually wear an anti-Bush T-Shirt without being arrested. Huzzah! You can type this arcane dissenting opinion and not be arrested, yet. Picture a murderous gang of thugs voting on who should be the trigger-man in a murder-robbery. The neocon democrats would have you believe that such a free and fair election trumps theft and murderor on a larger scale imperialism. And the victim? No matter, he wasnt part of the democratic voting group was he?
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 01 August 2007 11:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: That's not the issue. The Canadian government in the 80s played a leading role in pushing for divestment and sanctions against South Africa ..
Well the issue was almost centred on political interference in other countries. But I'll bite. I doubt very much that the Canadian government cared one way or another what happened to the racist regime in S. Africa. Our politicos used some harsh words in condemning apartheid now and again to puff up their sagging chests and opinion polls here. And the racist elites in Africa were certainly shaking in their boots and all the while enjoying cheap black labour. They probably made mental notes to do something about their racist policies as a result of Ottawa's notes and suggestions. What hurt the S. African regime the most was socially responsible investing. All of a sudden, ordinary people around the world began asking where their pensions and investment funds were being invested. The result was a shortfall in foreign investment in S. Africa to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year. SRI was expected to be a fad and to end after apartheid faded away.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 01 August 2007 11:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
I assume that if you think that elections are a total sham, it must be a waste of time and money to have them at all.
RED HERRING: "The phrase may relate to saving a hunted fox by dragging a smoked herring across its trail. This act would create a diversion through the strong smell of kippers."Edited to Add: also STRAW MAN "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 01 August 2007 11:49 AM
Posted by unionist: quote: ETA: By the way, you haven't answered my question. Why did you charge me with failing to distinguish between political and military wings? Canadian law does not do so.
I didn't think you were making the distinction in an earlier reply to Stockholm. But on your question, you're right. Canadian law SHOULD make this distinction. Canada and the US list all the wings of Hamas (political wing, social welfare wing and militia wing) as a terrorist entity, as if Hamas was a monolith which it is not. By contrast, the UK and Australia only list the militant wing (Al-Qassam Brigades) as a terrorist entity. It's worth remembering that the entire time the UK was fighting the IRA in Northern Ireland, the IRA's political wing (Sinn Fein) was allowed to contest elections for the UK Parliament (frequently winning though refusing to take their seats in Parliament).
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2007 12:41 PM
Even more scandalous than the treatment of Hamas is the case of Hezbollah. There is no conceivable pretext why Canada should label Hezbollah as terrorist, other than the fact that the U.S. does. The European Union does not view Hezbollah as terrorist. And there is no distinction to be made between "wings" here either.This is simply kowtowing to the U.S., and it is shameful. Canada's tradition is one of relative independence in such areas (as witness its defiance of the U.S. warmongering dictate on Cuba, China, Iraq, etc.). Hezbollah's supporters must be allowed to openly organize and do publicity for its cause in this country.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 01 August 2007 07:49 PM
quote: Hezbollah's supporters must be allowed to openly organize and do publicity for its cause in this country.
Did you also favour letting the IRA do fundraising in Canada to help them afford to plant bombs in pubs and "kneecap" Catholics who are married to Protestants? What about the Tamil Tigers? Should we welcome them to raise money so they can do more suicide bombings in Sri Lanka? ...and what if rightwing death squads in Colombia want to organize in Canada to raise money so they can slaughter villagers in that country? [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 01 August 2007 09:16 PM
The loyalist side commited more than their share of murder and terrorism by cops and the army against the Catholic Irish. We won't weep for the imperialists anytime soon.Sri Lankan authorities are commiting atrocities against their own people. And Colombia is pregnant with revolution as well. [ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 05:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
Did you also favour letting the IRA do fundraising in Canada to help them afford to plant bombs in pubs and "kneecap" Catholics who are married to Protestants? What about the Tamil Tigers? Should we welcome them to raise money so they can do more suicide bombings in Sri Lanka? ...and what if rightwing death squads in Colombia want to organize in Canada to raise money so they can slaughter villagers in that country?
I said Hezbollah. YOU were the one who said: "No party should be banned". Then you said to yourself, "Wait a minute - that was just empty bluster - I meant, all parties I don't like should be banned." And you've been scampering around like a headless chicken ever since. So answer a simple, straight question, if you are able - the way John K did: Should Hezbollah continue to be banned in Canada?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 05:59 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
But you prefer British taxpayers paying for the British military to shoot dead 13 peace marchers?You must be a horrible person.
Notice that he also has no objection to a multitude of organizations raising money in Canada for the Israeli military machine.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 06:06 AM
I know. Meanwhile ... quote: "Israel is currently stiffening the boycott on economic relations that has brought the people of Gaza to the brink of collective starvation ... This set of policies, carried on for more than four decades, has imposed a sub-human existence on a people that have been repeatedly and systematically made the target of a variety of severe forms of collective punishment ...To persist with such an approach under present circumstances is indeed genocidal, and risks destroying an entire Palestinian community that is an integral part of an ethnic whole. ... It is this prospect that makes appropriate the warning of a Palestinian holocaust in the making, and should remind the world of the famous post-Nazi pledge of 'never again.'"
Richard Falk
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 06:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you want to form a political party that is registered with Elections Canada to be called Hezbollah Party of Canada and you want to run in Canadian elections on a platform of making Canada into a Muslim theocracy - i have no objection.
Try again. Hezbollah is banned right now. If Hezbollah sponsors a public informational meeting in Toronto - assume no fundraising involved - you are in breach of the Criminal Code if you attend. Is that right or wrong?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 02 August 2007 06:49 AM
There is no Hezbollah Party of Canada - so this has nothing to do with anything.Political parties should be legal in the countries where they run candidates. But they must be parties and not a front for a paramilitary organization that breaks the law. If Hezbollah wants to disarm and spend every penny that it raises on door to door canvassing then good for them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633
|
posted 02 August 2007 07:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: . . . what about the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are banned in Canada? I find that repugnant to democracy.
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Other countries (U.S., Cuba, Luxembourg, Seychelles, etc.) have every right to ban whatever the frig they please in their own land. It is none of your business, nor of mine.. . . I support the right of the Cubans to ban all U.S. parties, all Canadian parties, their own Communist Party, and any tourists who try to tell them how to live their lives.
Curious . . .
From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 02 August 2007 07:51 AM
quote: Why do they need to disarm? Does Canada disarm to hold elections?
I guess it becomes a question of "what is a political party?". If the NDP formed a paramilitary wing called the Orange Shirts that started planting bombs and assaulting people and launching pogroms - i might agree with the NDP being banned.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 07:55 AM
quote: If the NDP formed a paramilitary wing called the Orange Shirts that started planting bombs and assaulting people and launching pogroms - i might agree with the NDP being banned.
But the parties of the ruling classes (including the NDP) have done exactly that. They call their military wing the RCMP. quote: There are new details of the RCMP's covert operation to set off a bomb in northwestern Alberta's oilpatch.Dubbed "Operation Kabriole", the RCMP's intention was to help an informant get closer to the two men police suspected were behind vandalism against the oil and gas industry.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1999/01/29/ludwig990129.htmlThey did similar things in Quebec to implicate the FLQ. And not a single officer of the RCMP has faced charges for criminal acts that threatened, even harmed, the public peace.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: There is no Hezbollah Party of Canada - so this has nothing to do with anything.
Trouble answering a simple question? Try again: If Hezbollah sponsors a public informational meeting in Toronto - assume no fundraising involved - you are in breach of the Criminal Code if you attend. That is a fact. Question: Do you agree that such activities in Canada should constitute criminal acts?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Curious . . .
Yeah, Free_Radical, open your mind a shade and understand that I, as a Canadian, can and do state my views as to what parties should or should not be banned in Canada. In foreign countries, it is up to the people of those countries to decide. You find it curious that someone should leave these decisions up to the people of the country concerned. I find it chilling that you don't understand the distinction. I find it horrifying that the Bushes and Harpers of this world rely on views like yours to invade, bomb, and occupy foreign countries until they do what "we" think is democratic.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:32 AM
quote: In foreign countries, it is up to the people of those countries to decide.
Yes, and of course that formulation would allow those of us who are overseas to insist upon a fair MECHANISM whereby THE PEOPLE in other countries could actually make this decision. Unless that fair mechanism is in place, it won't be THE PEOPLE at all who are making the decision, but the Somozas, Perons, and Castros, who think that they personally embody the people. That's why I think that we have an obligation to remain informed, and to be critical of undemocratic states wherever they may be, not just Approved Bad Guys like George Bush.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
Yes, and of course that formulation would allow those of us who are overseas to insist upon a fair MECHANISM whereby THE PEOPLE in other countries could actually make this decision.
Wrong, my friend. The Cuban people were sovereign, even when Batista was in power. Same with the Argentinians under Peron, or Nicaragua under Somoza. Respect for self-determination means foreigners have no right whatsoever to insist upon a "FAIR MECHANISM" whereby you decide whether we're going to invade the suckers and help "THE PEOPLE" liberate themselves. Otherwise, the whole world is held hostage to the "FAIR MECHANISMS" as decided by the U.S., the U.K., the Soviet Union (in its day), etc.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633
|
posted 02 August 2007 10:21 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Yeah, Free_Radical, open your mind a shade and understand that I, as a Canadian, can and do state my views as to what parties should or should not be banned in Canada.In foreign countries, it is up to the people of those countries to decide.
Ah, I see your position. Banning a foreign political party is an absolutely repugnent act - a death knell for democracy. But of course if other people want to do it, who cares? quote: Originally posted by unionist: I find it chilling that you don't understand the distinction. I find it horrifying that the Bushes and Harpers of this world rely on views like yours to invade, bomb, and occupy foreign countries until they do what "we" think is democratic.
Now, just because I called you out on your hypocrisy there's no need for these accusations about my character. I thought you had a thicker skin than that?
From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:12 AM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical: Ah, I see your position. Banning a foreign political party is an absolutely repugnent act - a death knell for democracy. But of course if other people want to do it, who cares?
You are very confused. I never said we shouldn't ban any foreign political party. That was Stockholm (before he started speeding uncontrollably in reverse gear). I said we shouldn't ban Hamas or Hezbollah. I definitely believe any party (domestic or foreign) which commits crimes against the Canadian people risks losing its freedom of action in Canada. Why do you think you got mixed up on that simple point? quote: Now, just because I called you out on your hypocrisy there's no need for these accusations about my character. I thought you had a thicker skin than that?
I said nothing about your character. I said it was chilling to think that some people apply their own standards of "democracy" to others (and of course not at home), and then become tools of aggressors and warmongers who put those "standards" into action abroad. If you don't espouse such views, then you are of course immune to my particular critique.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:21 AM
Unionist, a fair mechanism for elections is hardly a US construct. Most countries manage to hold fair elections without being invaded or bombed by anybody. There is a widespread consensus in the United Nations and other international organizations about the minimal conditions needed for an election to be free and fair. These minimal conditions include: * impartial adminstration - enrol all eligible voters and ensure casting a vote is a reasonably accessible process * a secret ballot * universal suffrage to ensure all adult citizens are able to participate * an absence of coercion, so citizens can participate without fear or intimidation * freedom of expression so citizens can participate in the political process directly or through media * freedom of association so that like-minded citizens can form or join political parties that best reflect their views, and further that citizens can run for political office either as independents or as nominated candidates for a political party * a transparent system to ensure votes are counted accurately and the outcome reflects the choices of the electorate, and * restrictions on spending by candidates, parties and third parties to ensure electoral fairness.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 11:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by John K: Unionist, a fair mechanism for elections is hardly a US construct. Most countries manage to hold fair elections without being invaded or bombed by anybody.
That's right. But sabotaging democracy and tainting democracy and rigging elections are a specialty area for the CIA and U.S. military. Read what Chomsky's co-author of Manufacturing Consent had to say about such illegal maneuvering by the U.S. shadow government. And btw, shadow government and the export of terror and torture to Latin America and beyond is completely incompatible with any and all notions of democracy.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 01:03 PM
quote: Unionist, a fair mechanism for elections is hardly a US construct. Most countries manage to hold fair elections without being invaded or bombed by anybody.
To be fair, in the last 100 years many countries that have held "free and fair" elections have had their governments forcibly deposed by the champions of free and fair elections. Take, Jeff House's comment where he said "we have an obligation to remain informed, and to be critical of undemocratic states wherever they may be, not just Approved Bad Guys like George Bush." Jeff House is also a vocal critic of Iran. Perhaps he could explain what became of Iran's experiment with free and fair elections in the 1950s? It is easy for us, sitting within the walls of the empire, awash in luxury and without fear of bombs falling on our homes and obliterating our families to adorn ourselves with self-righteousness and demand other nations adopt "free and fair" elections when in reality these things do not and never have existed. But, for fun, imagine a mouse sitting inside its hole with a cat waiting outside to pounce. And imagine we, the cat's kittens, sitting about licking ourselves and coughing up hairballs in between criticizing the mouse for not having the nerve to stick its head out of the hole. Awful brave of us, no? I have made the argument of Stockholm and I will gladly make it again. Prove the electoral system that we all worship as some sort of blessing from God works. My experience demonstrates that the political system, the institutions, including the so-called free press, drives the process and eliminates real choice while driving any other legitimate thought to the fringes through silence, ridicule, or force. So I would challenge anyone to take an issue of grand importance to themselves and launch a campaign around it for political change and their own election. Then demand the mouse expose itself to the cat. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 02 August 2007 02:26 PM
quote: Prove the electoral system that we all worship as some sort of blessing from God works.
Define "works". I get the impression that "Fidel" and "Frustrated" Mess will only believe that free elections as we have in the industrialized world "work" when they produce a Communist majority government. Sorry, but democracy is a process, not an outcome. Just because the voters don't feel like making the choices you want them to make doesn't mean that the system doesn't work - it just means that most people disagree with you.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 02:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, in other words, there is no point in any country having an election because the CIA will inevitably rig it. So I guess we should stop having elections in Canada and instead wait for them to be some bread riots that produce a dictatorship of the proletariat and a suspension of all civil liberties?
Canada is different. We have natural wealth for the imperialists to bleed off while they tell us how lucky we are to live in such a wonderful plutocracy with low inflation and a child poverty rate next to just Mexico, post-Berlusconi Italy and our largest trading partner by an unfortunate association of geography. They don't need us to do back-breaking labour under the tropical sun picking bananas and sugar cane for big sugar and big fruit companies while the mafia uses Port Au Prince(and with eyes on reclaiming Cuba as a conduit for drugs) to smuggle dope into the U.S. So no, they don't need our colonial administrators to send a group of robots to the SOA at Fort Benning every year to be trained in the art of torture and repression of communists and Marxist thought. Our guys handover the goods for a song, and we get to report the big GDP's and b.s. the world we're a real G8 economy when we're just a vast repository of mineral and gas and oil and hydro-electric power to be raided at will by the Yanqui corporatocracy since the majority of Canadians voted against Mulroney's FTA, and then for the traiterous Libranos in 1993. We're way behind other countries as far as being an advanced democracy. And that's because the plutocracy still rules this Northern Puerto Rico not the people as it is in revolutionary socialist Cuba. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 02 August 2007 02:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, in other words, there is no point in any country having an election because the CIA will inevitably rig it. So I guess we should stop having elections in Canada and instead wait for them to be some bread riots that produce a dictatorship of the proletariat and a suspension of all civil liberties?
Stockholm is shamelessly repeating the same red herring/straw man argument addressed above. If you point out that the us sabotages democracies, and uses the word "democracy" as cover for imperialism it means that, wait for it... that you are claiming that democracy is a bad idea and you want to do away with it. Brilliant.
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 02 August 2007 03:05 PM
Well then why not give us some constructive ideas on how we can have free, fair, multi-party elections in Canada that also fit your standards of being free of US interference.Seems to me like we have a pretty good system here. We have just about the strictest campaign finance laws in the world and we have public funding of parties which allows the NDP to be on an almost equal financial footing with the Liberals and CPC. Instead of just being dismissive of elections as something that can only ever be flawed, why not discuss ways in which you think countries like Canada and yes, Cuba can have the best of both worlds - free, fair multiparty elections with the freedom to criticize the government AND no vote rigging. I refuse to believe that the ONLY alternative to CIA rigged elections is absolute one party dictatorship and suspension of all civil rights.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 02 August 2007 03:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
I refuse to believe that the ONLY alternative to CIA rigged elections is absolute one party dictatorship and suspension of all civil rights.
Very noble sentiments indeed, but once again you have shifted the topic to domestic elective structures, and away from the knee-deep-in-blood imperial agendas of countries that hide under the flag of "democracy". To use my previous analogy: it matter's little how democratically a gang is run if its means of advancement is murder and robbery.
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 02 August 2007 03:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Well then why not give us some constructive ideas on how we can have free, fair, multi-party elections in Canada that also fit your standards of being free of US interference.Seems to me like we have a pretty good system here. We have just about the strictest campaign finance laws in the world and we have public funding of parties which allows the NDP to be on an almost equal financial footing with the Liberals and CPC. Instead of just being dismissive of elections as something that can only ever be flawed, why not discuss ways in which you think countries like Canada and yes, Cuba can have the best of both worlds - free, fair multiparty elections with the freedom to criticize the government AND no vote rigging. I refuse to believe that the ONLY alternative to CIA rigged elections is absolute one party dictatorship and suspension of all civil rights.
Pro Rep of course would be the first starting point.In Canada we are allowed our democracy because it never elects governmets that are nationalist. We voted 2 to 1 against free trade and got it anyways. We threw out the bums who gave it to us anyways and the next group of American toadies deepened the integration. We threw them out and now we have another group who want to more deeply integrate. Why buy the cow when the milk is free? We will only see if Canada is a democracy if we ever elect a gevenmet that stands up for national interests against the American imperial interest. The bizarre thing is that I work really hard to get a government that is nationalist elected while still believing it will be subjected to infanticide.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 04:29 PM
quote: Define "works". I get the impression that "Fidel" and "Frustrated" Mess will only believe that free elections as we have in the industrialized world "work" when they produce a Communist majority government.
Ah, the red baiting again. What more can I expect from a simple mind trapped in a time warp? quote: Well then why not give us some constructive ideas on how we can have free, fair, multi-party elections in Canada that also fit your standards of being free of US interference.
But then he asks an almost intelligent question. Steeped in the cold war rhetoric representative of the simple-minded dichotomy of which he is trapped, but an almost intelligent question none-the-less.It is not possible in a system designed to serve a hierarchy of power where the property of those higher up the heirarchy is more important than the lives of those below them. It is not possible in a system where economic growth and personal wealth take precedence over human development and human needs. I could go on and on. But suffice it to say that the political system provides an illusion of choice and participation where there is none. And it will not change. You Stockholm are a good example why. You buy into and promote the illusion because you are a beneficiary of a system that exploits others for, in part, your gain. You live well. That 2/3s of the planet lives in dire poverty and many face daily violence to support the Western empire is of less concern to you than your own comfort. Don't be offended by that as it is human nature. It is in your interests to sell others on the illusion of democracy because when the cat gets the mouse, what falls from the jaw of the cat will be partly yours.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 August 2007 04:51 PM
Again the red baiting. I think I will complain to a moderator. I don't think I should have to accept it. I find it entirely offensive on several levels. Not least of which I abhor communism as much as I do capitalism. I appreciate that to a mentally stunted individual such as yourself that such an idea must present a great deal of confusion. But I believe both marxism and capitalism are opposite sides of the same coin. I have no interest in a system that would merely redirect the proceeds of exploitation and destruction as opposed to ending the exploitation and destruction.More than that, both are ideologies of the industrial revolution and in a post-industrial world we will need new ideas and new ways of viewing human needs and wants than through the prism of ownership. Both capitalism and communism are failed ideologies of an era drawing to a close. Now grow up. [ 02 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 05:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Reading this lunacy from a couple of unreconstructed Marxist ideologues - it's no wonder that Communism has been such a total failure and now poses no threat whatsoever to the status quo in the world.
If it poses no threat, then why do you drone on so about Cuba ?. Why doesn't Uncle Sam close down the school of the ammurricas if they feel they can fully trust Latin Americans with democracy ?. Why doesn't imperialism central fold up its 700 plus military bases if domino effect doesn't threaten the status quo in countries where they've propped up despots and right-wing dictatorships and phony democracies over the years ?. Why don't the Yanks get the hell out of Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea if they believe the barbarians will remain divided after they entrust those millions of people with the right to choose for themselves ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 02 August 2007 07:25 PM
quote: If it poses no threat, then why do you drone on so about Cuba ?.
Because I feel sorry for people who have to live in a country where they have a dictator for life that they never voted for and where they risk jail time if they criticise the government. If there is even one dictatorship in the world - it's one too many.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 08:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
Because I feel sorry for people who have to live in a country where they have a dictator for life that they never voted for and where they risk jail time if they criticise the government.
There are hundreds of U.S. protesters of the School of the Americas who have collectively spent more than 900 years in what is the largest gulag population in the solar system right there in Amurrika. Cubans don't want your misplaced pity. You should feel badly for the children charged with vagrancy in Guatemala and El Salvador where they share miserable conditions with adults in rundown prisons. You should feel badly for those wayward Brazilian and Colombian children over the years who were chased by right-wing death squads into storm drains and flamethrowers turned on them where they slept every night of their miserable, pathetic lives. You should feel sorry for the thousands of socialists, teachers, doctors, students and rights activists who were tortured to fucking death in Argentina and Chile during the years of dirty war not so many years ago. quote: If there is even one dictatorship in the world - it's one too many.
You can say that again. by region and alphabetical order They should add OBL as a proxy wannabe anti-communist dictator, Musharraf, Karzai, Talabani, Uribe and more to come
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2007 10:58 PM
ALBA to Teach Millions More to Read quote: Caracas, Jul 18 (Prensa Latina) The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) aims to teach two million persons to read and write in Bolivia and Nicaragua during the next two years, assured Rafael Bell, Cuban expert on the subject.Bell who works as director of international cooperation of the Islandós Ministry of Education, told Prensa Latina that this number includes 1.2 million illiterate people in the South American nation and 800 thousand in Nicaragua.
Because freedom and literacy along with the ability to read names on electoral ballots go hand in hand.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|