Totally agree. I typically vote NDP provincially and I'm in Timmins. If they take her back I'm voting Green. I refuse to vote for any party that would accept someone like her.
And I suspect this seat will stay blue if she does.
Any leader worth their salt knows that accepting this MPP back into the caucus is the begin of the end of your own leadership. If other caucus members know that you can deceive the party leader and say whatever you want on a sensitive topic, well, then there will be others who ignore the leader and go their own way.
Add the endless questions about anti-semitism and you might as well fold the party.
Welcoming her back in the caucus is 401-tunnel stupidity. Maybe even worse.
while nothing you said is necessarily incorrect - the conservatives at every level have members that step out and say heinous shit all the time and it is never party fracturing. why give this so much air time?
jama looked to be a very convicted and potentially impactful politician. she unfortunately tripled down on her stance when a simple backpedal would've done wonders, and now won't be able to enact any change that she otherwise would've been a great advocate for. it's the exact flying too close to the sun extremism that you spend many columns arguing against.
so why illustrate this example? there are many rural conservatives that say things that would be far more damaging in battleground cities, but conservatives brush those under the rug completely.
not intending this as a criticism, just curious why "the left" (broadly speaking, obviously) feels the need to be above board always on pushing away the fringes.
Jama is arguably guilty of hinting at non-verbal support for Hamas, and I get your point Evan about her catching the NDP off-guard with her statements in the legislature. However, even as a matter of political pragmatism it is not feasible of a political party in principle to try to strictly control the non-verbal language of its representatives. I am also not sure if it is clear that she lied about her planned statements or had a last-minute change of heart. It's also not clear that these mis-demeanours warrant a permanent expulsion, there are many political punishments available to the NDP beyond the simple question of expulsion-or-not, like leaving hints that she would be kept out of any Cabinet, for example.
I get you’re pissed at the OLP right but denying that women were victims of sexual violence and claiming a Zionist conspiracy “controls” the Ontario government are not misdemeanours
I had the same opinion months ago. These are differences on what constitutes fact, not necessarily differences in values. To make the case that someone is genuine scum worthy of stigmatization requires objective evidence, like say someone being decried by someone who knows and who has worked with them personally. I don't see that here with Jama, but instead see her mostly being stigmatized by people who never really worked with her.
A couple of people unfriended me on Facebook because I disputed that Israel is guilty of "genocidal" behaviour. In their view my denialism of "genocide" was de facto advocacy for it. When you shun someone you still have the opportunity to talk to, there's every opportunity for a misunderstanding.
It depends on how loosely one defines "Zionist lobby" and how narrowly one defines "controls". Regardless, whether Jama's behaviour is tolerable is not the same question as whether her claim is correct, anymore than the question of whether I am "encouraging genocide" depends on whether my arguments about Israeli behaviour are factually correct or not. Tone is what matters here, not content.
Totally agree. I typically vote NDP provincially and I'm in Timmins. If they take her back I'm voting Green. I refuse to vote for any party that would accept someone like her.
And I suspect this seat will stay blue if she does.
Any leader worth their salt knows that accepting this MPP back into the caucus is the begin of the end of your own leadership. If other caucus members know that you can deceive the party leader and say whatever you want on a sensitive topic, well, then there will be others who ignore the leader and go their own way.
Add the endless questions about anti-semitism and you might as well fold the party.
Welcoming her back in the caucus is 401-tunnel stupidity. Maybe even worse.
while nothing you said is necessarily incorrect - the conservatives at every level have members that step out and say heinous shit all the time and it is never party fracturing. why give this so much air time?
jama looked to be a very convicted and potentially impactful politician. she unfortunately tripled down on her stance when a simple backpedal would've done wonders, and now won't be able to enact any change that she otherwise would've been a great advocate for. it's the exact flying too close to the sun extremism that you spend many columns arguing against.
so why illustrate this example? there are many rural conservatives that say things that would be far more damaging in battleground cities, but conservatives brush those under the rug completely.
not intending this as a criticism, just curious why "the left" (broadly speaking, obviously) feels the need to be above board always on pushing away the fringes.
Jama is arguably guilty of hinting at non-verbal support for Hamas, and I get your point Evan about her catching the NDP off-guard with her statements in the legislature. However, even as a matter of political pragmatism it is not feasible of a political party in principle to try to strictly control the non-verbal language of its representatives. I am also not sure if it is clear that she lied about her planned statements or had a last-minute change of heart. It's also not clear that these mis-demeanours warrant a permanent expulsion, there are many political punishments available to the NDP beyond the simple question of expulsion-or-not, like leaving hints that she would be kept out of any Cabinet, for example.
I get you’re pissed at the OLP right but denying that women were victims of sexual violence and claiming a Zionist conspiracy “controls” the Ontario government are not misdemeanours
I had the same opinion months ago. These are differences on what constitutes fact, not necessarily differences in values. To make the case that someone is genuine scum worthy of stigmatization requires objective evidence, like say someone being decried by someone who knows and who has worked with them personally. I don't see that here with Jama, but instead see her mostly being stigmatized by people who never really worked with her.
A couple of people unfriended me on Facebook because I disputed that Israel is guilty of "genocidal" behaviour. In their view my denialism of "genocide" was de facto advocacy for it. When you shun someone you still have the opportunity to talk to, there's every opportunity for a misunderstanding.
How is saying the Zionist Lobby “controls an entire government operation” a question of fact
It depends on how loosely one defines "Zionist lobby" and how narrowly one defines "controls". Regardless, whether Jama's behaviour is tolerable is not the same question as whether her claim is correct, anymore than the question of whether I am "encouraging genocide" depends on whether my arguments about Israeli behaviour are factually correct or not. Tone is what matters here, not content.
Yes, her actions warrant, no, require, permanent expulsion.
A caucus is not a book club where you may accept a rude member back after sufficient apologies.