In the category of 'So Dumb It Has To Be Seen To Be Believed': The Libby Davies controversy explained by Judy Rebick

There isn't a lot I can say in favour of the lunatic fringe of the NDP, but one thing I absolutely adore about them is that they don't seem to be able to stand in front of a video camera without saying something so mind-bogglingly idiotic that it completely undermines their credibility.

Now Judy Rebick gives us this week's performance.

She provides us with the answer to why Stephen Harper attacked Libby Davies so unrelentingly about her ill-informed, hostile performance in the video Voltaire's Ghost alerted CanWest reporters about.


Reasonable people would answer that question in a number of ways:

• a) Face Value: Harper is condemning Davies for her biased and ill-informed attempt to delegitimize the only democracy in the middle east and her outright hostility to Israel by wanting to harm it through sanctions.
• b) Obvious Political Agenda #1:  Any time you can weaken your political opponents, it's good for you, and Davies' idiotic performance was a vulnerability of the NDP's abundantly opportune for exploitation.
• c) Obvious Political Agenda #2: All the other parties had come to an agreement about the terms related to the documents pertaining to the Afghan Detainees turned over to Afghan forces by the Canadian military. The NDP was the one party that opposed those terms and was hoping to use it as an issue to attack the government. By turning around and picking at the open wound of the NDP's that Davies inflicted, Harper was able to deflect from the Afghan issue.
• d) Not-so-Obvious Political Agenda #1: An NDP/Liberal merger, of which there have been rumours aplenty, presented a potential problem for the Tories (although there are convincing arguments to the contrary). By highlighting just how looney the Looney Left Davies faction of the NDP is, it precludes the Liberals' ability to merge with a party whose views are so off the mainstream.
• e) Conspiracy Theory #1: Harper is an agent of the Evil Zionists. A popular and consistent theory among the far-left fringes of the NDP. No one with a modicum of intelligence takes it seriously, but that criterion excludes the far-left fringes of the NDP. 

All pretty straight forward and lots of people could have anticipated those explanations. even the crazy conspiracy theory.

But Judy Rebick, prominent left-wing commentator and the founder of the Marxist-leaning, union-financed propaganda organ rabble.ca has come up with a theory about Harper's reaction that no (sane) observer could have expected.

At a recent forum sponsored by rabble, Rebick provided the audience with this theory about the motivation for Harper's condemnation of Libby Davies over her comments suggesting Israel has no legitimacy as a country and her calling for sanctions against Canada's most reliable mid-east ally.

Rebick said it is because...

Stephen Harper is a sexist.

Now that one, I didn't see coming.

You can see it in this video:




There are number of utterly preposterous, hypocritical and frankly rather stupid allegations that Rebick makes in this video that reflect the thinking of the far-left fringes of the NDP that should be examined in a bit of detail.

By now, readers of this blog are familiar with the Libby Davies video that
Rebick unintelligently characterizes as a "set-up." Rebick also is unapologetic about her belief that the State of Israel had no right to be founded in 1948.

Rebick goes on to say Davies got "mixed up" about the dates. A view of the Davies video would seemingly refute that and for someone who has taken such a vociferous position against Israel to be so ignorant, or "mixed up" about the facts says a great deal but there's more. Much more.

Rebick states that "the democratic system in Canada is one of the narrowest and weakest in the world."

One wonders to which other democratic system Rebick is comparing Canada's. Would it be to Turkey's vibrant democracy that outlaws discussion of the Armenian Genocide they continue to deny? Perhaps the Iranian democracy, where candidates must be approved by the Supreme Council of mullahs? I suppose she prefers American democracy and in this I would agree, I think we would benefit form a separation of the Executive and Legislative branches like in the US. But I suspect America wasn't what Rebick had in mind.

Rebick then states that Stephen Harper is an "autocrat" who has gotten "rid of almost all our democratic rights."

What rights Rebick is talking about that we have been rid of are unclear. None have been eliminated to my knowledge. Canadians have free speech, free and open elections, and an independent judiciary with rule of law. We still have a country where Judy Rebick can harp and criticize and even slander the highest elected official in this country without any criminal repercussion. She probably is referring to the "democratic right" of her and public figures she agrees with to attack and criticize others without being criticized in return.

Obviously, Ms. Rebick's understanding of Democratic Rights leaves much to be desired.

At 4:45 in the video, Rebick states, "The attack on Libby is a sexist attack as well as an anti-democratic attack, an attack on reducing freedom of speech in this country."

(I'll assume Rebick meant an 'attack on freedom of speech' rather than an "attack on reducing freedom of speech" since her meaning, as stupid as her argument is, is that Harper is against free speech.)

Does that mean that Bob Rae and Marc Garneau, who have also called for Davies' resignation, are anti-democratic, free-speech hating, sexists as well?

To to put it in a nutshell, Rebick believes that public figures like her and Libby Davies, who seek to influence public opinion, should be allowed to say what they like and criticize whatever and whomever they like, in any way, including baseless nonsense, and yet they should be free of any criticism in return. And if you do criticize or in the case of Libby Davies, even draw attention to what they are saying and advocating, you are "attacking free speech."

Rebick makes what is clearly the most hypocritical and what may well be the stupidest argument I have ever heard within the realm of public discourse.

What is particularly worrisome about Davies and Rebick is that a great deal of their anger about Davies' comments coming to the forefront of public attention is about the views they hold being exposed.

Davies is not being mischaracterized about her views. She is being publicised for them. That she is upset about her positions being exposed to the public is exactly what the public has to fear from Davies and those within the NDP whose support she commands.


COMING SOON: Libby Davies, Judy Rebick and their misrepresentations about "McCarthyism" and freedom of speech.