Well no surprise there. Didn't you know the whole thing is just a front for the Democratic Party Deep State?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-exposed-funding-womens-march-dc/#...

Whatever omission may have happened in Vancouver (and you know, presumably the complainants could have picked up the phone BEFORE the march too) that article is pretty clearly a hatchet job on anyone who opposes Trump's policies.

If they are going beyond the fairly clear targets of the DNC and other power brokers, and stooping to smear people whose motive is showing up to protest, that is.

Maybe you should post some articles by all the men who whined that their rights were ignored and no one was marching for them. I sure read enough of that crap over the weekend.

Thanks for that, NDPP. I'm not usually comfortable about debates between allies (in this case, "intersectional" issues within the movement), though I note from the article that similar issues arose in the Washington march. These are problems that will need to be sorted out within the movement itself, as is happening with the issue that arose between Toronto Pride and BLM.

I really think that for men (especially) to try to situate this account about a problem in the feminist movement as Trump vs. Hillary, Republican vs. Democrat, Obama/Trump/Putin, etc., is misplaced and disrespectful - and those are the most innocuous adjectives that occurto me. Telesurtv is an important and essential progressive news source. I don't think we can characterize it as a pro-Trump anti-Hillary mouthpiece. Here are the links to other articles on the very same page as this article:

Well to characterize a dispute over choice and anti-choice participation  as "chaos reigns" might be a little misplaced too. Especially since it was resolved.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Womens-March-Torn-and-Fragmented-A...

No one here is trying to de-legitimize telesur, so I am not sure what all those other articles have to do with anything.I am talking about their coverage of this issue.

And I acknowledge that BLM may have been left out in Vancouver. But given that telesur's coverage of the international march seems focused almost exclusively on its shortcomings, I think it is fair to raise the question of bias.

It seems unfortunate if more efforts weren't made to contact Black Lives Matter, but that doesn't mean it was 'shut out'. Many of these marches seem to have been organised by newcomers to activism - the march here, according to friends that went, had little input from La Fédération des femmes du Québec, the trade unions or other usual suspects.

Because of the legacy of slavery, Black people are harmed by racism throughout the Americas, but I tend to think of Indigenous people being those worst off in that particular city. I admit my ignorance about the Black community or communities in Vancouver. Sure, of course I remember Rosemary Brown, but am not really up on the social context there at the time.  I get the feeling that the movement there will have to work on building more bridges with women in the Black community.

what a bunch of bs. i got no time for whining.

from what i can see in a quick glance was a white transwomen carrying on about non-inclusion and a bunch of other transwomen (etd as i had no idea other word use was considered phobic terminology. my apologies) carrying on about how dare white women use the word "pussy" and wear pink eared toques.

Vancouver's march was hugely diverse in gender, race and ethnicity.

BLM a very very small group in Vancouver who has been in existence around a year but they wanna come before First Nations of both genders who were front and center? and they feel they have a right to lecture? ya no.

To be clear, I don't put the blame so much on BLM or any one group. The issues they raise are actually valid, even though this is a two-way street.

But I see slanted coverage like that, like the claim that George Soros was behind it all, as  exploitation of these issues for an ulterior motive. And I don't think that motive has anything to do with racial equality.

Let's dismiss all 3.5 million as privileged white women and a front for the DNC rather than looking at the reason why we gathered.

i'm not putting the "blame" anywhere.

if people want to marginalize themselves it's their choice. cause it's what they did.

if people want to believe slanted propagandalike was linked above it's also their choice but i will call it for what it is.

when i see people like my cousin who used to belong to a FN gang marching on Saturday for Indigenous and human rights wearing an everyone is sacred  shirt i got no time for whiners who excluded themselves.

Holy shit this is offensive. Babble tacitly accepts a good deal of transphobia, but this takes the cake.

Calling an article a hatchet job on anyone who opposes Trump's policies is clearly an attempt to de-legitimize telesur.  That is to be expected since they don't follow the propaganda line of the news sources you prefer. Those other articles seemed to highlight the difference between a left wing sites analysis and the places you normally quote from.

@ k

Mmm. No. I actually said quite specifically what I was talking about.

The total focus in two articles of what the Women's March was doing wrong, even to the point of gross mischaracterization like refering to them laying down the law on choice as "chaos reigns". Real progressive.

I didn't say a thing about the site. And even though two of you have tried now to spin my comments in that direction, you don't actually have anything to base it on.

Organizers started this out as a women's movement, but quickly opened it wide to accept intersectional participants - activists and people concerned about anti-racism, LGBTQ issues, economic inequality, trans issues. They may not have specifically invited a specific group in a specific community, but the ethos has been inclusion from the beginning.

The only position that wasn't included was the anti-abortion crowd ( I will *NOT* refer to them as "pro-life") because their aim is antithetical to the preservation of Planned Parenthood and represents a restriction rather than a support of women's rights. Let's face it, that's a position that's already well-represented in the newly formed government, they don't need a presence here.

I don't know telesur, but if this is the kind of argument they want to make, I don't think much of them so far.

They have run good articles. I have linked to them before. I think most recently on Venezuela. This isn't one of their better ones, though.

Yes and that is exactly the response that 6079 's post was guaranteed to elicit whether he meant to have that effect or not.

It must be my mysterious power to cloud men's (and women's ) minds.

Who knows what evil....

Actually, it wasn't Smith - I read the article at the link. I didn't think much of it. It's a workday, so I've only got so much time to put into investigating the site right this moment. I'll get to it, but if this is their usual tone on women's issues, I'll treat them much like the progressive dudebros who get the socialism but don't get the feminism. (Unfortunately not that rare a thing.)

I didn't like the article much either but it was 6079's claim; "that the article is pretty clearly a hatchet job on anyone who opposes Trump's policies." that caught my notice. 

I am not sure what to make of the article since it seems the march was inclusive but not inclusive enough for BLM.  It's an internal fight in the activist community ion Vancouver and I no longer live in there so I don't want to be involved in. I would have liked to have read an article that gave a broader perspective since this was clearly biased.  

Activist rivalries on a local scale, maybe? I don't know. The march here acknowledged that we were on Treaty 4 land and was very inclusive to the indiginous groups involved, and the big march in Washington was, IIRC, started up by two black women. It's been pretty successful as an intersectional effort, overall.

TB, do yourself a huge favour and find out about Telesur - please - before making an offhand comment like that. It's just the kind of divisiveness that some here are trying to promote - on both sides of the creepy "fence" that is infecting so much of the discussion these days. 

As I said above, "if". I also said I'd look more closely at some point, just not this afternoon.  :)

i'm not transphobic.  please indicate what you think is?

criticing the article (term losely used) who they linked to and their facebook posts is my right. when they start carrying on publically about how dare ciswomen use the word pussy... then it's not me who has a phobia.

this and their spreading a negative false agenda stating these marches were not inclusive is what is truely offensive imv. the small amount of those doing this aren't allies in anything.

quiz, "trannies" is considered a transphobic term. Please don't use it, okay?

female transactivists in Vancouver have been targeting feminists and their supporters in Vancouver and BC a long time. i view anything they do or don't do through this lense.

it took very little research to find BLM Vancouver is maybe an extension or close partner of transactivists and the pro-prostitution lobby and they wanted to use this as their soap box.

maybe i'm wrong in my perception this is their motivating factor in giving an "alternative facts" of the march in Vancouver but i doubt it.

have a look at just a few pics of the march and see the truth in the divisity. just look at who rightly was leading the march (2nd link 3rd and 5th pics down) and when you take a look at the speakers list. you realize just how an "alternative fact" it is on the part of BLM.

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/photo/vancouver-womens-march-trump-tower/3...

and

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2017/01/21/thousands-march-in-van...

ok and thank you.

perhaps one reason people are wary of working with BLM in canada is their propensity for turning their anger inwards towards the groups trying to work with them?  They don't seem to be very easy to get along with...

i'm curious, did BLM attend the rally, even if they were not part of organizing it?

Perhaps they were worried about a repeat of the Toronto Pride parade?

Glenn Beck (who once again realizes what side his bread is buttered on) has discovered that Radical Islam was also behind the march:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/glenn-beck-thinks-the-womens-march-wa...

That is perhaps the nuttiest interpretation yet. Isis and Al Qaida behind a feminist protest?

Hey. Bash the women, international Jewry (this same Soros spin is getting play in The Daily Stormer too) the deep state, and the muslims all at once. It's perfect.

They are all out to get the real Americans.

Black And Trans Voices Frustrated By Lack Of Inclusion in Vancouver Women's March

http://buff.ly/2jf2Fsj

"Controversy over the lack of Black and trans voices at the Vancouver Women's March on Washington has opened up a conversation about how to move forward with inclusive feminist organizing.

 After the march rabble.ca interviewed Daniella Barreto of Black Lives Matter Vancouver, who said she was concerned about the lack of Black voices on the speakers list.

"We find it concerning,' she said, 'for a march that was organized against oppression in the US and was held in solidarity [the organizers of the march] didn't think to include members of groups that would be disproportionately affected by the new administration and changes that are going to happen in the States.'

Organizers of the march responded with varying degrees of defensiveness and regret online.."