Stockwell Day and Arafat

[caesar]

Stockwell day adds to a rumour that Arafat had aids when asked why he did not send condolences. I think this is indicating a little libel and a lot of discrimination against people with aids. I find it very irresponsible to add fuel to a rumour with proof. What an nit wit

[kimmy]

I assume this is what you're referring to:

CTV report

From what I can tell, Day is citing the David Frum article to illustrate his view that "As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick.''

However, as the CTV report points out, David Frum's article is not just about Arafat having AIDS:

Elsewhere in the article, Frum writes that Arafat was a man motivated by the spirit of destruction who measured his success in the grief he inflicted on others without much caring what his supporters suffered in return.

Stockwell Day has long been known to be a supporter of Israel. He has been criticized for his lack of neutrality on the Israel-Palestine issue. I think the most rational explanation as to why he didn't send a condolence, and why he cited David Frum's article, is that he is not a fan of Arafat or the PLO.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Stockwell Day cites Arafat AIDS rumour in email

Stockwell Day is pointing to a published report that includes the suggestion that Yasser Arafat had AIDS in explaining why he didn't send condolences on the death of the PLO leader.

If anyone does die of AIDS, why are not worthy of sending sympathies?

[Slavik44]

The guy is dead I don't think he is to worried about wether or not the most insignificant man in politics just snubbed him, perhpas we could just give Day a jet ski?

[maplesyrup]

Arafat kin blames Israel

This is going to open up a whole can of worms, so to speak. One would think in a situation like this, an autopsy would have been performed, so that there would be no confusion as to what was the cause of Mr Arafat's death.

[caesar]

To cite an irresponsible report such as that one is plain stupid. To not clarify that his attitude had nothing to do with the declared possibility of arafat having aids or that he (Day) did not condemn anyone who did have aids is plain stupid on both counts.

According to Palestinian authorites; the cause of death is unclear. The low white blood count points to poisoning but tests have been unable to identify any. That could be very possible considering the number of poisons that can be administer and leave no trace.

[ceemes]

When Stockwell day rode into Penticton riding a seadoo and wearing a flashy wetsuit, the locals started referring to him as Stockwell Gay........or Doris Day........didn't stop him from winning the riding a number of times over......but people up there just dont take him seriously and only vote for him because he is hard right.......but still, one has to wonder how much gay is really in day at times.....especially when you see him in person.....personally I think he could probably give Sven a run for his money

[Knave]

According to Palestinian authorites; the cause of death is unclear.  The low white blood count points to poisoning but tests have been unable to identify any.  That could be very possible considering the number of poisons that can be administer and leave no trace.

Arafat's wife was reported to be considering releasing her husband's medical records, according to the paper I read the other day.

There were rumours circulating for a while that Arafat might have been homosexual and\or had AIDS.... but they were, unsubstanciated, as was mentioned earlier. If I'm not mistaken, a low white cell count is also a symptom of being HIV-positive, so I think that only fuels the allegations and speculation.

[ndpnic]

I'm not surprised by Days reaction - pretty typical of the babyboomers!

Fear and ignorance abound in that generation!

No doubt Arafat was gay too, eh?

All that really matters is a Nobel prize winner has passed. Sad day for the world if you ask me!

[ndpnic]

Day is a jackass! If he were American, he'd be an ignorant, biggotted, rednecked, southern Bush lovin hillbilly!

Day has no place in Canadian government.

[kimmy]

To cite an irresponsible report such as that one is plain stupid. To not clarify that his attitude had nothing to do with the declared possibility of arafat having aids or that he (Day) did not condemn anyone who did have aids is plain stupid on both counts.

He was having an e-mail discussion with party colleagues, not issuing a press-release.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

Day is a jackass! If he were American, he'd be an ignorant, biggotted, rednecked, southern Bush lovin hillbilly!

Since he's Canadian, I guess that would make him an ignorant, biggotted, rednecked, western, Bush-lovin hillbilly.

Still, writing a string of perjoratives about him doesn't really seem like the sort of open-minded, intellectually refined debate that non-ignorant, non-biggotted, non-redneck, non-hillbilly Canadians supposedly value.

Day has no place in Canadian government.

Why? Because you disagree with his views?

-kimmy

[kimmy]

To not clarify that his attitude had nothing to do with the declared possibility of arafat having aids or that he (Day) did not condemn anyone who did have aids is plain stupid on both counts.

And, Day has indeed clarified the intent of the email.

"No. I was just saying there are two schools of thought about Yasser Arafat: one that he was a great statesman and a help to the Palestinian people, and one that reflects on his terrorist background and that he wasn't a help," he said. "It was reference to two schools of thought."

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

To cite an irresponsible report such as that one is plain stupid.  To not clarify that his attitude had nothing to do with the declared possibility of arafat having aids or that he (Day) did not condemn anyone who did have aids is plain stupid on both counts.

He was having an e-mail discussion with party colleagues, not issuing a press-release.

-kimmy

Is this a sort of 'what happens in Vegas' defence?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The claim that Arafat died of AIDS is such a transparently 'motivated' assertion that it surpasses even the usual low standard of Likudist propaganda.

When an old man dies after years of house arrest, and someone suggests AIDS as a plausible first place to look for cause of death, you've got to think why are they saying that.

[kimmy]

To cite an irresponsible report such as that one is plain stupid.  To not clarify that his attitude had nothing to do with the declared possibility of arafat having aids or that he (Day) did not condemn anyone who did have aids is plain stupid on both counts.

He was having an e-mail discussion with party colleagues, not issuing a press-release.

-kimmy

Is this a sort of 'what happens in Vegas' defence?

No. It's a response to Caesar's comment that he should have been specific about what he meant.

I don't write my private emails with the assumption that I have to make each one clear enough that strangers who somehow wind up in possession of it will be able to understand that email, out of context. Do you?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't write my private emails with the assumption that I have to make each one clear enough that strangers who somehow wind up in possession of it will be able to understand that email, out of context. Do you?

I think if he's entitled to the benefit of unspoken meanings or intentions, then we're entitled to our doubts about what they are.

[kimmy]

I don't write my private emails with the assumption that I have to make each one clear enough that strangers who somehow wind up in possession of it will be able to understand that email, out of context.  Do you?

I think if he's entitled to the benefit of unspoken meanings or intentions, then we're entitled to our doubts about what they are.

Of course. We all have our prejudices about the people in Ottawa. In Day's case, it goes without saying that a lot of people are prepared to believe the worst about anything he says. That's fine, and maybe even justified.

What's interesting to me, in this instance, is that the reporter who wrote this story are, apparently, among those.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't write my private emails with the assumption that I have to make each one clear enough that strangers who somehow wind up in possession of it will be able to understand that email, out of context.  Do you?

I think if he's entitled to the benefit of unspoken meanings or intentions, then we're entitled to our doubts about what they are.

Of course. We all have our prejudices about the people in Ottawa. In Day's case, it goes without saying that a lot of people are prepared to believe the worst about anything he says. That's fine, and maybe even justified.

What's interesting to me, in this instance, is that the reporter who wrote this story are, apparently, among those.

-kimmy

I don't believe it's fair to call all inferences prejudice. When someone propagates an implausible and inflamatory story such as this, some conclusions suggest themselves more strongly than others.

[redmos]

Of course. We all have our prejudices about the people in Ottawa. In Day's case, it goes without saying that a lot of people are prepared to believe the worst about anything he says. That's fine, and maybe even justified.

What's interesting to me, in this instance, is that the reporter who wrote this story are, apparently, among those.

I think that it's less a matter of what we're assuming, and more of a matter of Day refusing to outright deny it initially. He was asked by a reporter what he meant by it and didn't clarify. At that point, you worry that he's trying to cover his posterior.

And even if he isn't, it's almost as if he's telling everyone [wink, wink] "it's okay that he's dead anyway, because you know what it means if he has AIDS, right?"

I'm not saying that he is, just that it's not an unreasonable assumption to make from his actions.

[maplesyrup]

Obviously one of the recipients of Day's e-mail was concerned enough about its inappropriateness to have made it public, and so it should be. And good on that person whoever it was.

If one is to be a principled person your private behaviour needs to be in sync with your public positions. In other words walk the talk.

We need more honesty in society, not less.

We need less secrecy in sociey, not more.

[kimmy]

I don't believe it's fair to call all inferences prejudice. When someone propagates an implausible and inflamatory story such as this, some conclusions suggest themselves more strongly than others.

Did you actually read the David Frum piece before deciding it was implausible and inflammatory? Or did you just base that conclusion on what you've read in this thread and the fact that it's David Frum?

If you're interested in reading the piece, it's here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15801

Frum's point is NOT that "ARAFAT has AIDS and is a FAG and will DIE soon." Frum cites the media's lack of curiousity into Arafat's ailment to support the article's main point: the media is pretty spineless when it comes to Arafat.

Agree with Frum, or disagree. But his column is not about whether Arafat had AIDS, it was about whether our media painted an unjustly rosy picture of the man.

The fact of this incident: Stockwell Day cites Frum article in explaining why he didn't send condolences to Arafat.

People are free to draw whatever inferences they wish from that. However, I'm not sure it's a reporter's job to draw inferences. I think that's the job of other members of the House of Commons, editorialists, columnists, and so on.

News reporters are supposed to report news, not create it. By presenting this as if AIDS was the key point of the Frum piece, rather than a single supporting paragraph in his main thesis, the report has put bias into the coverage of this story.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

The key point of Frum's article was AIDS. He knew it was a trigger word in society, and used it on purpose.

Yea, right, let's shoot the messanger here, and blame the newspaper reporter. Nonsense, the reporter was doing his/her job.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't believe it's fair to call all inferences prejudice.  When someone propagates an implausible and inflamatory story such as this, some conclusions suggest themselves more strongly than others.

Did you actually read the David Frum piece before deciding it was implausible and inflammatory? Or did you just base that conclusion on what you've read in this thread and the fact that it's David Frum?

Kimmy, you don't have to read David Frum to know what he's going to say. Now I did read it, and lo and behold, it was exactly the sort of tripe I expected it to be.

Frum's point is NOT that "ARAFAT has AIDS and is a FAG and will DIE soon."   

He went out of his way to make it seem otherwise. From the story:

These symptoms sound remarkably AIDS-like, don't they? An AIDS diagnosis would certainly accord with what is widely known about Arafat's personal way of life. (Some of the lurid, homoerotic details can be found in the memoirs of Lt.-Gen. Ion Pacepa, former head of Romanian intelligence under Nicolae Ceausescu. See page 36.)

Frum cites the media's lack of curiousity into Arafat's ailment to support the article's main point: the media is pretty spineless when it comes to Arafat.

Exactly the kind of worthless hobby-horsing we expect from Frum.

The fact of this incident: Stockwell Day cites Frum article in explaining why he didn't send condolences to Arafat.

...News reporters are supposed to report news, not create it.

So what did the reporter say that was out of line?

[Argus]

Stockwell day adds to a rumour that Arafat had aids when asked why he did not send condolences. I think this is indicating a little libel and a lot of discrimination against people with aids. I find it very irresponsible to add fuel to a rumour with proof. What an nit wit

Don't you think it more likely Day didn't want to send condolensces because Arafat was a murdering terrorist scumbag, rather than any possibility he might be gay?