Monday, May 11, 2009

Jim Coyle writes an excellent piece on Cheri DiNovo

This goes out to the prudes and self-righteous hypocrite moralists, the petty partisan hacks (especially the Liberal ones, for whom DiNovo's greatest offence clearly was running against them), and any other DiNovo haters (for whom it appears DiNovo's greatest offence is not knowing her place as a woman in politics).  Most of the stuff with which people have attempted to smear her reputation would never have become an issue if she were a he, especially one of the hegemonic Liberal or Conservative neoliberal variety.

I haven't always agreed with Jim Coyle, although without question I respect him as much as any MSM journalist writing today. I think today Coyle's right on the money. Cheri DiNovo's endured numerous vicious, disingenuous and irrelevant attacks on her reputation and her record with grace and strength. Her opponents routinely underestimate her mettle.  Today's article on my MPP, Cheri DiNovo, is long overdue praise and a fair assessment of her high quality as an MPP. I would expect to see the following in statement in the DiNovo's campaign literature:
But say this: working from the cozy confines of the 10-member NDP caucus, taking up the cause of any underdog who comes along, happy to wear her heart on her sleeve, as outraged by the ear-splitting here-and-now of construction piledrivers outside homes in her riding as she is by the more notorious of history's horrors, DiNovo gives her constituents full value.

5 comments:

penlan said...

I have no problem with DiNovo. But to say that Ruby Dhalla should be thrown in jail was off the mark. These are just allegations against Dhalla at the moment & these women have not even filed a complaint yet through legal channels.

I was surprised that DiNovo would make such a statement given all that she has had to deal with in the past with nasty words & allegations, untrue, thrown at her. It seemed out of character to me at this stage of the whole issue.

Derrida said...

I agree that at first blush and as reported by the Toronto Sun and some of DiNovo's detractors the comment seems way over the top. And ultimately the comment is typical Question Period bluster, but I believe there's also a serious side to the question.

To those who watched the events in question or read Hansar, there is a more nuanced and respectable respectable version of the events. Most importantly, from a contextualized point of view, DiNovo was responding to Fonseca's claim earlier in that Oral Questions that "Again, getting back to our employment standards, let's be clear: Anybody-any employer-who breaks the law and discriminates against a pregnant woman or someone who is on parental leave will be severely penalized through fines and even imprisonment."

Thus, it is not DiNovo calling for Dhalla's head on a stick, as was reported. She is asking Fonseca, if these tough words on upholding labour standards will extend to a high profile Liberal MP. At issue is not simply why did Fonseca sit on his hands for two weeks, but whether his tough talk extends to his friends as well. The issue of Fonseca and other Ontario Liberals obstructing justice and covering up for Dhalla. It is not about circumventing due process but of asking Liberals to extend and initiate due process with their friends.

I believe that when presented with allegations of potentially illegal abuses, the Minister of Labour has a moral, if not legal, duty to act (i.e. pass this off to appropriate bureaucrats to investigate). Giving them a 1-800 number that wasn't even yet activated or blaming a flawed federal system is flagrantly irresponsible.

penlan said...

Do you have a link to Hansard where I can read the actual exchanges myself?

Derrida said...


Oral Questions Wed. May 6, 2009
.

janfromthebruce said...

One would think that the spin from the press - which most bloggers are aware of - get blinded when it is about their "shirts."