babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » Bev Desjarlais: Her comments and what should happen?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bev Desjarlais: Her comments and what should happen?
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2004 03:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bev Desjarlais was brought up in another thread, and how her stance is not appreciated within the NDP and gay community.

Personally, I do not understand how someone who does not understand the fundamental principles of human rights even ran for the NDP party. However, she did, she won and she is in caucus. Now what should happen, if anything, if she remains true to her position of voting against SSM human rights is the question?

Kick her out of caucus? Allow her to vote free? Conduct a poll in her riding on this issue and then decide?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about "do whatever they'd do if she voted against the right of black Canadians to marry".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly. Anti-gay jerks like her shouldn't be welcome in the NDP.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 09 December 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is always a potential for conflict between the expressed positions of a political party, the personal views of an M.P, and the views of the M.P's constituents.

The NDP has a set policy that minority rights should not be subjected to the will of the majority. This is a longstanding policy of the party and Bev Desjarlais either knew or should have known this when she sought to become an M.P for the NDP. Her constituents should similarily be aware. It's not like this issue has come out of nowhere, it was discussed in the previous election and the party leader fully disclosed the party's position.

Therefore, her options are clear. She can either "get sick" on the day it comes up in Parliament and not vote, or she can vote based on the declared position of the party.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 09 December 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm just wondering whether Bev has said anything about this since the last vote. Does anyone know?
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 09 December 2004 04:37 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Exactly. Anti-gay jerks like her shouldn't be welcome in the NDP.

So you'd lobby equally, then, for Monia Mazigh to be fired from NDP staff for her anti-gay views?


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, today. She said she will vote against the bill.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I would not. Although if you were around during the election, you would know that I was quite firmly against her nomination as an NDP candidate.

There is a difference between being an employee of the NDP or a member of the party at large, and a public representative seeking election. If you can't support basic human rights, then you don't support a core issue of the NDP and therefore you should not be running for election as a representative of the party. I certainly don't like it that there are members of the party who are against SSM, and I think they're wrong, but individual members do not represent the party as a whole, the way elected members do.

Believe me, if you think you're going to find some kind of inconsistency between my support for Bev Desjarlais, Father whatshisface, and Monia Mazigh, you are barking up the wrong tree. I don't think any of them should be representing the party in a public capacity if they can't support basic civil rights.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Yes, today. She said she will vote against the bill.

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this. WTF is she doing in the NDP?! I have written her a letter stating that I find her actions and comments repugnent, but I simply do not feel it was enough.

Has Jack made a press release about this yet?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not accusing any particular babbler of anything here, but it honestly seems to me that if the issue were "can Blacks marry one another", or "can Asians marry one another" or "can Natives marry one another" then we wouldn't be debating anything at all. Any NDP MP or MPP who didn't support the right of any of these minorities to marry one another would be gone from the party (or shuffled to a backroom to lick envelopes) and that would be that.

I'm sorry if I'm selling anyone short but it's getting harder and harder not to think that there's some pretty damn subtle homophobia at work when the fact that we're talking about same sex couples, and not Blacks, Asians or Natives, makes all the difference.

"We can't judge Bev!"

"Abstaining (ie: not doing the job you're paid to do) is OKEY DOKEY... honourable even!"

"the NDP is a 'big tent' and we need every bigot we can get!"

"SSM doesn't have universal appeal yet (just like mixed race marriage 40 years ago) so we can't just demand that MPs support unpopular human rights!"

This desire to ensure that bigots like Bev get to enjoy being "progressive" NDP members while at the same time announcing their intention to lend their support to the CPC position on a basic human right is disturbing.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with you entirely, Magoo. I agree with you about the abstaining part too. If you can't fully and vocally stand up for human rights, then what on earth are you doing in the NDP? In a party with a small number of elected members, every vote counts. If you can't actively vote in favour of human rights, then get the hell out and make room for people who can.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Believe me, if you think you're going to find some kind of inconsistency between my support for Bev Desjarlais, Father whatshisface, and Monia Mazigh, you are barking up the wrong tree.

We just had a thread on this a month ago that Dagmar participated in extensively. You, I and others made our positions clear at the time.

http://tinyurl.com/6bxys

My but Dagmar does like to go over and over the same territority, doesn't he?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 09 December 2004 05:09 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

I simply cannot wrap my mind around this. WTF is she doing in the NDP?! I have written her a letter stating that I find her actions and comments repugnent, but I simply do not feel it was enough.

Has Jack made a press release about this yet?


Jack commented yesterday saying she will have to support the party position.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2004 05:12 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
IThis desire to ensure that bigots like Bev get to enjoy being "progressive" NDP members while at the same time announcing their intention to lend their support to the CPC position on a basic human right is disturbing.

It is more than disturbing, it is sickening, and it so needs to be addressed ASAP by Jack! Bev stating crap like that within the NDP and it being allowed is simply more than wrong! I see it as eroding the positions of the party and it is her telling those that make up the NDP they are wrong about human rights principles.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastguy:

Jack commented yesterday saying she will have to support the party position.


Or what??? That simply is not enough.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I think we all know what's going to happen here. Deja vu all over again as Yogi Berra would say.

She'll put up a tough front and so will Jack.

In the end, she'll stay away from the vote he'll let her. Nothing more will be said about it, and Jack will go on making the completely false claim that the NDP doesn't allow free votes on human rights issues and doesn't harbour bigots in caucus unlike the other parties.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sadly, I think you're right, RB.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 09 December 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's all just calm down for a second.

First of all, there is nothing before the House at the moment. Nothing to vote on, at all.

Second, I havent' seen any statements by Desjarlais as to how she will vote at all or not.

And finally, I get really, really bothered by people who play these kinds of ideological blood tests with candidates, trying to decide if somebody is pure enough or not to sign on with the party.

We are a large party with a broad range of opinions. Some of the people under discussion i.e. Father Des McGrath (not "Father whatshisface", thank you very much) and Monia Mazigh said in the campaign that they would respect party policy enough to abstain from the vote. To deny such people the right to stand as a candidate of the party, based on their views on one policy is disrespectful of the important and progressive political work that such people have done on other files in the past.

What would happen if we had a gay MP who was not so sympathetic to claims of economic equality? Would we be as quick to demand their dismissal?


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I come by the name honestly.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 December 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
They've painted themselves into a bit of a corner...

I'd prefer if Layton made an attempt to impose caucus discipline on this issue. Unfortunately, it may be a bit late to try to appear pure on a matter of principle.

Since he had earlier nominated as candidates the openly anti-SSM Catholic priest in Newfoundland and the anti-SSM Monia Mazigh (since hired as caucus researcher for heaven's sake!!!), it would be difficult to argue Desjarlais should be treated differently.

The best scenario now is that she abstain or have a "diplomatic flu" as it is called in French (call in sick).

Had the NDP adopted a consistent position in not accepting the nominations of the priest and Mazigh, Layton would be in a better position now to ask that Desjarlais vote for any SSM bill or resign from caucus.

At the end of the day, though, SSM will be recognized in law. We should not lose sight of this very positive outcome overall for Canadian society.

Do conventions come up with lists of "must support" issues? And was SSM one of them? I think it was but I can't remember...


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 09 December 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that is the most likely outcome, and since there would [hypothetically] be no way to prove Bev missed the vote on purpose, there would be no far way to discipline her.

With that said, there would be no way to prove, six months down the road, that when in a minor shuffle she was left out of having any critic responsibilities it had anything to do with this issue. There'll be no way to prove exactly why she's never allowed to speak during question period. Who can say why her order for lawn signs during the next election campaign came back with a spelling mistake, or why such a well-funded and organized challenger took her on for the nomination? Who's to say why the central campaign offered her no resources or help at all, if she is fortunate enough to hold off that surprisingly well resourced challenger? Who's to say why all her campaign volunteers got phone calls asking them to help out in other Manitoba and Northern Ontario ridings? Who can prove any link to this issue in any of that?


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I call BS on that stay away tactic, it should not be allowed to happen, either she attends and votes with the party, or she is gone! Or perhaps she should be publically trashed by Jack after all he did it with Ms Parrish on something much much less significant!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 05:31 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
Second, I havent' seen any statements by Desjarlais as to how she will vote at all or not.

You haven't seen them because you chose not to look for them. Why should the rest of us have to govern our discussions by your willful ignorance?

"If there is a vote, I will be there and I will not support changing the definition," she said yesterday.

Desjarlais said it's important to be present in the House of Commons for a vote to represent her constituents.

"I acknowledge there is belief within the party on this and that's fair enough, but I have my beliefs as well and I think that will be respected," she said.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 05:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you think support for basic human rights is an "ideological blood test" then I suppose that's your right, spindoctor, but I certainly won't apologize for not wanting to give a warm welcome to bigots. You wouldn't dream of calling it an "ideological blood test" if we were calling for the removal of a white supremacist from the party.

I said "Father whatshisname" because I couldn't remember his name, and I wanted to be sure to include him in what I was saying because I didn't want to be accused of criticizing a Muslim (Mazigh) and not a Christian (McGrath). Frankly, I don't give a damn what his name is - the important thing is, he supports discrimination against gays and lesbians.

So you can get "really, really bothered" all you like. I get "really, really bothered" by people who excuse gaybashers.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 December 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
The stay away tactic is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary tradition. Not that I find it the most courageous kind of political behaviour but it can have its place - it provides a useful safety valve allowing people to "save face" in certain circumstances.

The major fact is the SSM bill will carry, most NDPers save one will vote for it.

Since the precedent has been set that prominent NDPers can be against SSM (the 2 candidates), being harsher towards Desjarlais would be hard to justify and a little face saving may be in order.

But I have to say her stance is quite hard to take.

If she does show up ands vote no, she can have her critic positions revoked. At least that.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 09 December 2004 05:35 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:

And finally, I get really, really bothered by people who play these kinds of ideological blood tests with candidates, trying to decide if somebody is pure enough or not to sign on with the party.

We are a large party with a broad range of opinions. Some of the people under discussion i.e. Father Des McGrath (not "Father whatshisface", thank you very much) and Monia Mazigh said in the campaign that they would respect party policy enough to abstain from the vote. To deny such people the right to stand as a candidate of the party, based on their views on one policy is disrespectful of the important and progressive political work that such people have done on other files in the past.

What would happen if we had a gay MP who was not so sympathetic to claims of economic equality? Would we be as quick to demand their dismissal?


Careful there fella. Or they'll start calling you a "hateful bigot." As for your last point, based on previous posts, I know some would not only not demand their dismissal, but would applaud them.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
And right on cue, here comes Josh, our resident apologist for bigotry.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 December 2004 05:38 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
LAnd finally, I get really, really bothered by people who play these kinds of ideological blood tests with candidates, trying to decide if somebody is pure enough or not to sign on with the party.

It has nothing to do with being pure enough, it has everything to do with basic human rights on all levels.

quote:

We are a large party with a broad range of opinions.

Are you saying bigotry within the NDP is correct and should be accepted as a broad range of opinions?

quote:

What would happen if we had a gay MP who was not so sympathetic to claims of economic equality? Would we be as quick to demand their dismissal?

Yes! The same would go for anti-pro-choice peoples.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 05:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Since the precedent has been set that prominent NDPers can be against SSM (the 2 candidates), being harsher towards Desjarlais would be hard to justify and a little face saving may be in order.

I disagree. All we have to do is say, "The policy has changed. We made a mistake letting homophobic people run for election, and now, we are enforcing party policy on core issues."

I also like John_D's idea for dealing with Desjarlais should she decide to "call in sick" on that day. Abstaining may be something people have done over the years, but on an issue like this one, it's not acceptable, when every POSITIVE vote is needed.

It's like Magoo's analogy from the other thread that RB linked to earlier - if you're on a hockey team with only five players, and you decide, "Nah, I think I'll sit this period out," leaving your team one person short, it's not good enough to say, "Well, at least I'm not scoring goals on my own net."

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 09 December 2004 05:40 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As distasteful as I find their position, I am hesitant to resort to labelling those who are opposed to gay marraige as "gay bashers." That kind of rhetoric is more harmful than helpful, and frankly, inaccurate.

quote:
f you think support for basic human rights is an "ideological blood test" then I suppose that's your right,

It absolutely is an ideological blood test. Rights are never absolutes. They are social conventions and based on political agreement, they evolve over time. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't recognize the right to a house. I see that as a "fundamental human right", but others would disagree.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 December 2004 05:41 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I could agree Michelle if they also fired Mazigh who was a candidate and therefore who is known as an opponent of equality rights for gay people.

Turfing Desjarlais after having recruited Mazigh makes little sense.

As long as the policy adopted has some consistency... either they made allowances in the past for this kind of dissidence and therefore it looks arbitrary to single out Desjarlais or the policy is enforced equally and Mazigh also has to go.

I'm fine with either course of action.

Again, the important thing in my mind is that Canada will have SSM.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great. Then let's let in white supremacists and the Ayn Rand society, too. After all, we wouldn't want any "ideological purity tests".

quote:
I could agree Michelle if they also fired Mazigh who was a candidate and therefore who is known as an opponent of equality rights for gay people.

I've already addressed this in this thread and the other one that Reality Bites linked to. I'm certainly no champion of Monia Mazigh.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Careful there fella. Or they'll start calling you a "hateful bigot." As for your last point, based on previous posts, I know some would not only not demand their dismissal, but would applaud them.


Who is "they"?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What would happen if we had a gay MP who was not so sympathetic to claims of economic equality? Would we be as quick to demand their dismissal?

And if we had an MP who wouldn't support the right of Blacks to marry, would you defend them? Would it be a "purity test" to insist that they cannot be a standard-bearer for the NDP while holding that view?

Will anyone here — anyone — please attempt to defend that opinion? Just for the sake of consistency, please tell me how or why the opinion that Blacks should have fewer rights than everyone else should be worked into the big tent? If you can't do this, then why the hurry to defend Bev?

And I'm sorry, but abstaining from a vote means not doing the job you promised to do, and that you draw a paycheque for doing. It's nothing more than a coward's way of having their cake and eating it too, and by no means should it be encouraged or tolerated. If a member is genuinely sick, or genuinely unable to attend a vote, fine. If they're faking it to avoid taking responsibility, why should the constituents of that member's riding, or for that matter the taxpayers who pay that MP's salary, accept such obvious and self-serving workplace absenteeism?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 December 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I strongly dislike John22's suggestion. Such shadowy sabotage is a tool for corrupt parties and people, not a party wanting to appear as one of discipline. Toss her out openly, not a "be on the team or bad things will happen to you that you wont be able to prove is us".

That shoulds like a republican, NOT a NDP'r


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 December 2004 05:50 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Agreed Mr. Magoo - in general. But if the priest and Mazigh would have been allowed to abstain or take the day off, so should Desjarlais.

Or, as argued above, Desjarlais must resign from caucus and Mazigh has to be fired and from now on, on various issues to be defined (by whom I am not sure - I don't know enough about NDP internal committees), discipline has to applied consistenly.

I have no problem with either of those 2 options. Have a policy and apply it equally. Suits me fine.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 December 2004 05:50 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

....but abstaining from a vote means not doing the job you promised to do, and that you draw a paycheque for doing. It's nothing more than a coward's way of having their cake and eating it too, and by no means should it be encouraged or tolerated. If a member is genuinely sick, or genuinely unable to attend a vote, fine. If they're faking it to avoid taking responsibility, why should the constituents of that member's riding, or for that matter the taxpayers who pay that MP's salary, accept such obvious and self-serving workplace absenteeism?



A-Fucking-men. I loathe chickenshit MP's, MPP's, MLA's, Aldermen, Reeves, Councilor, and whatever other elected position you can think of.

From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 09 December 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want to point out that according to the statements attributed to Bev above, we shouldn't (once again) be debating whether or not abstaining from the vote is an honourable compromise, OR whether Mazigh or McGrath were acceptable candidates, OR whether Mazigh should be on staff.

It seems like she has said that she WILL vote against a hypothetical bill. Why she has changed course, since she was absent at the last vote, is unclear.

But notwithstanding where anyone here stands on the abstentation issue, I think we can all agree that if Bev votes AGAINST SSM she should be out.


From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 December 2004 05:55 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Then Layton should ask her to resign. And quietly terminate Mazigh a few weeks later.

If the policy is that opposition to SSM is a form of bigotry, Desjarlais is not good caucus material and it was an obvious mistake to hire an openly bigoted person like Mazigh.

I know I never would have hired her - and if I were in the NDP national office, I would be on the phone to the top employment law specialists to figure out a way of terminating her contract.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 09 December 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Great. Then let's let in white supremacists and the Ayn Rand society, too. After all, we wouldn't want any "ideological purity tests".

Why are you so quick to enforce ideological rigidity in a democratic party?


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 09 December 2004 06:01 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
edit: I should read the full thread before I post.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 December 2004 06:02 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think NDP members who shop at Walmart should be kicked out of the party.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 December 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Because we have agreed here - if I understand - that her ideas are considered to be those of a bigot and she was hired in an important party position whereas the father was not hired (as far as I know). She is not being "targeted" for her religion. She is being attacked as a bigot in a party officially opposed to bigotry against gay people.

It is a bit harsh but that seems to be how people are feeling. Her stance appears fully imcompatible with being a party official. I think that what this means.

Therefore, she should go. Or be fired.

Sorry Meades...

I prefer, if there is to be a position, that it be applied consistently to elected officials and prominent party employees. Especially if they are or have been on record.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
What would happen if we had a gay MP who was not so sympathetic to claims of economic equality? Would we be as quick to demand their dismissal?

So economic equality is a human right now? Or should CLC members now be including which of its members get to marry and which ones don't when they sit down to hammer out a collective agreement? Verily, "spindoctor", your nickname is well chosen.

Economic equality is NOT a basic human right on a par with who in a society has a right to be married. If you think otherwise, you might find a happier home in a party with "principles" so elastic that they can be said not to exist.

Mind you, depending on how he handles this mess, which he was instrumental in creating, I might start saying the same thing about JACK.

Desjarlais should be GONE, period.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 December 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know about "economic equality" per se, but economic rights indeed are human rights. Sometimes the NDP does a damn poor job recognizing that.

That being said, if Desjarlais votes against the NDP caucus on the definition of marriage, she should be kicked out of caucus.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 09 December 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:


Who is "they"?


I couldn't have asked for a better example than the post immediately following mine. Someone who, not for the first time, appears to be so small minded that he is inacapable of understanding that someone can support SSM, but honestly question the wisdom of making it a litmus test.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2004 06:32 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't recognize the right to a house. I see that as a "fundamental human right", but others would disagree.

So if Asians were prohibited from owning houses, you'd be OK with that, since it's not actually a right in the first place? The fact that it's a de facto right for everyone else, but one group is denied that right, wouldn't make it a human rights issue?

What would you say to someone who saw it as a right for caucasians, but not for Asians? What if that person was a representative (not an office employee) of the NDP?

This so totally isn't about what is or isn't a right. It's about de facto rights, like the right to marry, being denied one group and given to another.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 09 December 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bacchus - it is a bit shadowy, but I thought I addressed why the NDP couldn't be more open about sanctioning an MP if they deliberately missed a vote by pretending to be sick/delayed in traffic/whatever. Simply, there is no way to prove the excuse isn't valid. "NDP MP fired for having the flu" is not a headline I ever want to see. But, in this case, where it is widely known that Ms. Desjarlais has done this sort of thing before, and is on record as supporting bigotry, we can be reasonably certain she would be faking if the situation came up.

There is no need to be entirely shadowy about it, though. We should make it clear that if Bev misses the vote intentionally, then that shows her to be, at best, a political coward, and not worthy of being used in any critical roles within the caucus. Let her know beforehand that absence will, at the very least, cause her stock as an NDP MP to drop sharply, and that the party leadership will remember that when it's time to decide on critics and committee memberships. And if she actually falls ill... let her do what anyone else who had a suspicious habit of missing work and being sick on the big days would have to do, and make her get a doctor's note.

As for those who say there should be no ideological blood tests... why not? If the party is democratic in the way you mean it, it means nothing to represent the party. Why be a New Democrat at all if that doesn't mean you support certain things - say, basic human rights as a starter - and oppose others? What point is there to voting for a party that does not stand up for its beliefs? I am a very moderate leftist (I was once described, not without merit, as a "closet Red Tory"), but I would stop voting NDP if they didn't discipline Bev over this. You cannot dismiss me and people like me as a radical fringe. We are, instead, people still naive enough to think that principles ought to matter every once in a while. If the NDP can't provide that, if they are no better than the Grits, I might as well vote strategically for the Liberals. At least I'd be on the winning side.


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 09 December 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Economic equality is NOT a basic human right on a par with who in a society has a right to be married.


Gee, I wonder what the greatest Canadian, and the other founders of the NDP, would have thought about that statement. And I take the poster who originally referred to "economic equality" to have intended to mean "economic justice," not absolute equality in all material aspects.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 09 December 2004 06:41 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Economic equality is NOT a basic human right on a par with who in a society has a right to be married.

Oh how far we've come in our supposed "socialist" party. What do you have to say to the thousands of newfoundland fishermen who Father McGrath organized to ensure a decent living? Why are their rights to a decent life less important than the right of gay people to marry?

quote:
So if Asians were prohibited from owning houses, you'd be OK with that, since it's not actually a right in the first place? The fact that it's a de facto right for everyone else, but one group is denied that right, wouldn't make it a human rights issue?

What gave you that idea/ I said that I thought it was a fundamental human right that people should have a right to shelter ( I meant shelter, not "house" per se). How could I possibly accept a situation whereby one ethnic group was forbidden from that right?


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Simply, there is no way to prove the excuse isn't valid.

My employer has a great idea. A doctor's note! We also have the same policy for a student who misses an exam for medical reasons. A doctor's note! It's so simple it's brilliant.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 09 December 2004 06:55 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
No, I would not. Although if you were around during the election, you would know that I was quite firmly against her nomination as an NDP candidate.

There is a difference between being an employee of the NDP or a member of the party at large, and a public representative seeking election.


Seems to me that there's even more of a ccase to get rid of Mazigh. She is not a public servant - she is being paid out of the pockets of NDP members such as yourself and myself -- why should someone who is anti-gay be employed by the party?


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 06:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:

Why are you so quick to enforce ideological rigidity in a democratic party?


Why golly, I'm not! By goodness, I think we should let everyone in. Let's be a REAL "big tent" party. Let's recruit neo-nazis and holocaust deniers! Let's see if the local KKK has anyone they want to run! Heck, let's see what Mike Harris is doing these days - sure, he's a poor-basher, but what the hey? Enough with the ideological rigidity, I say!

As for your post, josh, I don't think you're a "hateful bigot". I know you support SSM. But I can't figure out why you would make excuses for those who ARE hateful bigots.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Seems to me that there's even more of a ccase to get rid of Mazigh. She is not a public servant - she is being paid out of the pockets of NDP members such as yourself and myself -- why should someone who is anti-gay be employed by the party?

Because her personal views on same sex marriage will not likely come into conflict with the job description. As an MP, they will come into direct conflict with her job performance.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 09 December 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't matter. Either the NDP is for or against same-sex marriage. If the party is for it, then all members of the party and all of its employees ought to share in this view. If we're going to hire people who don't share our beliefs, I can think of many people more qualified than Monia Mazigh: Tom Flanagan, Rod Love, Warren Kinsella, to name a few.

But if we are a party of principle, then the principle should apply to caucus members and all people who draw salaries from the pockets of hardworking party donors.

In short, why the hell should Bev feel pressured to vote for same sex marriage when the party doesn't even give a shit enough about the issue to ensurre that all of its staffers and researchers share in tthese same supposedly core NDP values?


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 09 December 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
If you can't actively vote in favour of human rights, then get the hell out and make room for people who can.

Your statement -- strident as it is -- makes good eminent sense. Time for Monia to quit and let someone who cares about human rights have a crack at her job.


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 09 December 2004 07:13 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

As for your post, josh, I don't think you're a "hateful bigot". I know you support SSM. But I can't figure out why you would make excuses for those who ARE hateful bigots.

Good point Michelle. The question is: why do you make excuses for bigots?


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because Bev is representing the party publicly. Some admin assistant or researcher in a back room is not. I know you don't like the distinction, but that's the answer.

I don't mind if people join the party when they're not "up to speed" on all the issues. Some people made the argument that someone from another culture where this isn't even an issue may need time to get used to the idea, and used to the arguments for and against. That's fine. But if you can't support core principles, you shouldn't be representing the party publicly in a leadership position, especially one where your views will conflict with the performance of your job. Licking envelopes or doing research is not likely to have that effect.

However, if her homophobia WERE to come into conflict with something she had to do at work, then yes, I would support firing her.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 09 December 2004 07:17 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Why not hire Stockwell Day then. His religious beliefs don't support same-sex marriage. Maybe he just needs time to 'get used to things'.

OOOH THE HYPOCRISY!


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
spiffy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3518

posted 09 December 2004 07:18 PM      Profile for spiffy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:

Seems to me that there's even more of a ccase to get rid of Mazigh. She is not a public servant - she is being paid out of the pockets of NDP members such as yourself and myself -- why should someone who is anti-gay be employed by the party?


she's paid by the ndp caucus, in other words by the government of canada. not by ndp members (well, indirectly i guess, as most ndp members are taxpayers).


From: where do you think i'm from? | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I think NDP members who shop at Walmart should be kicked out of the party.

Do you?

I know you're just trying to be a smartass here, robbie, but that was a really stupid parallel. Maybe if you said, "I think every elected NDP member who votes for a bill that would allow Walmart to engage in strikebreaking or unionbusting practices should be kicked out of the NDP," then yeah, I think that would be just fine. And I think most people here would support you on that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 09 December 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Either the NDP is for or against same-sex marriage. If the party is for it, then all members of the party and all of its employees ought to share in this view.

First of all, that requires a discussion of what one means when they say "the party." By your definition, is "the party" Jack? The caucus? Federal executive, council, convention delegates, those with paid memberships, party staff? Some combination of the above? An election platform?

Whenever "the party" is greater than one person, regardless of the level of ideological conformity required to join, there is going to be dissagreement on issues and principles. And as such, at heart this relates to larger discussions of party organization (ah, Duverger, you teach us much), and the distinction between cadre and grassroots parties (broadly, since very few fall into such extremes).

I also think we need to distinguish normative considerations (the shoulds, the oughts) from practical considerations (mechanisms of control currently in place or feasible to be introduced, how to determine where "the NDP" stands on an issue) to make this a productive conversation. While I'm all for Bev bashing, the questions are deeper, about where power rests, where it should rest, and if we actually beleive that, how do we get there.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 09 December 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why not hire Stockwell Day then. His religious beliefs don't support same-sex marriage. Maybe he just needs time to 'get used to things'.

Exactly. Or Hitler? Why not hire Hitler?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 09 December 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no hypocrisy on the part of Jack Layton. As a matter of fact Jack has shown courageous leadership on this issue having suported SSM since the 70s.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your post, leftcoastguy, is nothing but an assertion, with absolutely no refutation of any of the arguments in this thread to back it up.

I agree that Jack is a pretty cool guy. But I think he's wrong on this issue, for the reasons people gave above. Your statement pretty much amounts to, "No he's not! I like him! So there!" which really isn't enlightening in the least.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 December 2004 07:30 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe if you said, "I think every elected NDP member who votes for a bill that would allow Walmart to engage in strikebreaking or unionbusting practices should be kicked out of the NDP," then yeah, I think that would be just fine. And I think most people here would support you on that.

OK, go with that then. At least unless the CLC or some other such organization officially calls for a boycott of Walmart. Then maybe we can start watching the checkout lines and parking lots for disobedient NDP MPs to punish.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 07:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, so go with that. Anyone disagree? No? Excellent. Your point is moot.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 09 December 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd chuck Bev. Sure it'll lose the party a seat but it'll also convince people the NDP has principles and will take a hit for them. As opposed to being a party that wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Bev Desjarlais and her apologists make me very angry. See how you feel if I bargain with your rights.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 December 2004 07:39 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually my point is I feel like we've gone over this a million times before already and I am having trouble working up any more righteous indignation one way or the other. Maybe when there's a bill before the House, but until then, this is just blah blah blah.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 07:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Actually my point is I feel like we've gone over this a million times before already and I am having trouble working up any more righteous indignation one way or the other. Maybe when there's a bill before the House, but until then, this is just blah blah blah.

Yeah. It wouldn't be just "blah blah blah" if it were your rights on the chopping block, as rasmus says.

Like Audra said in the other thread on this that was linked to, I always find it so interesting when people who have nothing to lose by the erosion of minority rights seem to think they're really nothing to get all that concerned about.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 07:44 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Why not hire Stockwell Day then. His religious beliefs don't support same-sex marriage.

How about because in addition to being a bigot, he's also an idiot?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 09 December 2004 07:56 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah. It wouldn't be just "blah blah blah" if it were your rights on the chopping block, as rasmus says.

Like Audra said in the other thread on this that was linked to, I always find it so interesting when people who have nothing to lose by the erosion of minority rights seem to think they're really nothing to get all that concerned about.


I'm very concerned about minority rights. I am less concerned about conducting a witch-hunt for alleged bigots in the NDP, at least for the time being. (I am sure we have more of them than Bev Desjarlais, if we look hard enough). Maybe when there is a bill before the house, but for now folks are just grinding axes.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 09 December 2004 07:56 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastguy:

Jack commented yesterday saying she will have to support the party position.


quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Or what??? That simply is not enough.


So now supporting the party position isn't enough? What the hell do you expect? Do I have to remind folks on this witch hunt that Bev hasn't voted against the Bill yet!

And, if I recall:
Monia said it didn't fit with her religious beliefs, but she would not vote against the party on it.
Father Des's position was that it didn't fit with his religious beliefs, but that he would not vote against the party on it.

This is an issue where a lot of people are uncomfortable -- and a lot of people have become more comfortable over the course of the past decade. Shutting people out because they aren't comfortable right now isn't the way to effectively address the issue.

That said, if Bev actually votes against the Bill, show her to the door.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 08:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I'm very concerned about minority rights. I am less concerned about conducting a witch-hunt for bigots in the NDP, at least for the time being. (I am sure we have more of them than Bev Desjarlais, if we look hard enough). Maybe when there is a bill before the house, but for now folks are just grinding axes.

Who's conducting a witch hunt? She made openly homophobic PUBLIC STATEMENTS to the press. To people who follow political news, you'd have to bury your head in the sand NOT to respond to provocation like that.

quote:
So now supporting the party position isn't enough? What the hell do you expect?

Nobody said that supporting the party position isn't enough. The quote you posted by remind was in response to Jack's statement, where he said simply that she will have to support the party's position. When she said "or what", what she wants to know is, what are the consequences of NOT supporting the party's position? When she said, "that's not enough," she was saying that it's not enough to say that someone has to support the party's position without saying what the consequences are for not doing so.

And guess what? "Not voting against the party" on this issue ISN'T good enough. I don't want to compromise on this issue. If someone can't give your POSITIVE vote FOR a basic human rights issue, then they can fuck off and find some other job that doesn't involve standing up and being counted. If this comes to a vote, then every vote will be crucial. Everyone who abstains is actively taking a vote AWAY from the final tally. I think that's enough reason to get your ass booted out the door.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 09 December 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post
"And guess what? "Not voting against the party" on this issue ISN'T good enough. I don't want to compromise on this issue. If someone can't give your POSITIVE vote FOR a basic human rights issue, then they can fuck off and find some other job that doesn't involve standing up and being counted. If this comes to a vote, then every vote will be crucial. Everyone who abstains is actively taking a vote AWAY from the final tally. I think that's enough reason to get your ass booted out the door."

What about voting the position that may be dictated by her constituents. Or does the NDP not give a shit about what their electorate thinks?


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2004 08:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Her constituents should know that when they vote NDP, they're voting for a progressive party. If she conveniently "forgot" to get this across to her constituents, then that's her fault.

And if her constituents feel so strongly about being against SSM that they're willing to have an independent MP, then so be it. No one's saying she should be impeached. She should just be kicked out of the NDP. If her riding loves her for it, they can vote her back in - as an independent, or a CCRAP member.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 09 December 2004 08:49 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a bit unrelated, but i dont think we should be so sure that the same sex bill will pass the House.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
The numbers are there.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 09:14 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
Oh how far we've come in our supposed "socialist" party. What do you have to say to the thousands of newfoundland fishermen who Father McGrath organized to ensure a decent living? Why are their rights to a decent life less important than the right of gay people to marry?

That is not what you said. You wrote —

quote:
What would happen if we had a gay MP who was not so sympathetic to claims of economic equality? Would we be as quick to demand their dismissal?

Are you talking about "ensur[ing] a decent living" or about "economic equality"? Because I'm talking about *EQUALITY*. If you're going to say a fisherman should earn as much as an architect or as little as a barroom tap jockey, I'm gonna say " Psssshhhhh— yeah right!" If you're going to talk about the right to ensure a "decent living", that is entirely a different matter — indeed, when it comes to SSM, it's apples and oranges. I don't see anyone saying that that ONLY men can be fishers, or ONLY caucasians, or some such. I DID see a practice that said ONLY opposite sex couples could get married. As Magoo said, it's about de facto rights, and whois granted them and whois not.

quote:
Originally posted by Josh:
Gee, I wonder what the greatest Canadian, and the other founders of the NDP, would have thought about that statement. And I take the poster who originally referred to "economic equality" to have intended to mean "economic justice," not absolute equality in all material aspects.

Josh, you can choose to read into spindoctor's post all kinds of things that he never said. I took his posting to mean exactly what it said. It's a failing of mine.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 09:19 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
quote:
~~~~~
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I think NDP members who shop at Walmart should be kicked out of the party.

Do you?

I know you're just trying to be a smartass here, robbie, but that was a really stupid parallel. Maybe if you said, "I think every elected NDP member who votes for a bill that would allow Walmart to engage in strikebreaking or unionbusting practices should be kicked out of the NDP," then yeah, I think that would be just fine. And I think most people here would support you on that.


Thanks, Michelle. I didn't want to get "shirty" with robbie about that post, but it rather pissed me off. I'm glad you spoke up.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 09 December 2004 09:22 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do you know RB, can you show me the numbers please?
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 09:29 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
quote:
~~~~~
So if Asians were prohibited from owning houses, you'd be OK with that, since it's not actually a right in the first place? The fact that it's a de facto right for everyone else, but one group is denied that right, wouldn't make it a human rights issue?
~~~~~~~~~~~

What gave you that idea/ I said that I thought it was a fundamental human right that people should have a right to shelter ( I meant shelter, not "house" per se). How could I possibly accept a situation whereby one ethnic group was forbidden from that right?


Let's get this CLEAR.You couldn't possibly accept a situation whereby one ETHNIC group was forbidden a basic right, but you're okay when a basic right is denied to QUEERS— is that the basics of it?

'Coz if it is, I have only three words for you, and they ain't very polite...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 December 2004 09:42 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allow me to weight in:

1. By all accounts the bill legalizing SSM is going to pass by a solid margin - esp. now that Martin is making all cabinet members vote for it. Once the bill passes, I think we will all be so overjoyed that we will be less angry at Desjarlais than say - if the bill lost by one vote - hers.

2. I feel strongly about this issue, but I am willing to accept letting people abstain. MPs miss votes all the time - its not ideal, but I recognize that there will be some people who are very progressive on the vast majority of issues who simply need to move up the learning curve on thsi one. During the 2004 election campaign, Mazigh and McGrath made it very clear that if they were elected and this issue came up - they would abstain - that was good enough for me.

3. Desjarlais had abstained last time and indicated that she would abstain in the future and I accepted that. Now if she reneges and actually votes against - that is a different story.

4. There are a variety of penalties that can be applied. She could be stripped of her critics role. She could be taken off committees, she could be told that she will not get Jack Layton's signature to run as the NDP candidate in the next election. or she could be expelled from caucus and made to sit as an independent. I think that expulsion is a last resort, but if she insists on actively voting NO, there is no alternative.

5. Don't believe this bullshit from MPs saying that they are voting according to the wishes of their constituents. Its a lie - they are voting according toi their own narrow religious views and they are just using that line as a cover.

6. I have no problem whatsoever with someone like Monia Mazigh working for the NDP. She isn't and MP and has no influence on this issue. Its not as if every single person who has a paid position with the NDP has to answer a 200 item questionnaire on party policy and if they disagree with a single solitary thing - they get fired! There are labour laws to protect people on that. Mazigh is working on economic policy. her job has nothing to do with gay issues.

In the end, the bill will pass, we will be overjoyed and then we will never have to deal with this again.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
quote:
~~~~~
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Actually my point is I feel like we've gone over this a million times before already and I am having trouble working up any more righteous indignation one way or the other. Maybe when there's a bill before the House, but until then, this is just blah blah blah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah. It wouldn't be just "blah blah blah" if it were your rights on the chopping block, as rasmus says.

Like Audra said in the other thread on this that was linked to, I always find it so interesting when people who have nothing to lose by the erosion of minority rights seem to think they're really nothing to get all that concerned about.


You know, Michelle, I am awfully uncomfortable with the idea of males practicing law. I mean, there might be no rational basis for it, but it's a very deeply held belief, and I'm just uncomfortable even knowing that there are males practicing law out there — even if I never have any interaction with them whatsoever. Just knowing they're there makes me uncomfortable.

andrewtgsadler will understand where I'm coming from, as he writes —

quote:
This is an issue where a lot of people are uncomfortable -- and a lot of people have become more comfortable over the course of the past decade. Shutting people out because they aren't comfortable right now isn't the way to effectively address the issue.

Well, I think we should start a national movement to restrict the practice of law to females. As a rule, they are more empathetic than males, and I think they make better advocates and adjudicators, as studies have consistently shown that women are better listeners than men. And besides, the males just make me uncomfortable.

Now, I know I won't be called upon to defend this viewpoint until it is tabled as a bill in the House, so I won't pester you with any more justifications right now. What say you? Are you on board?

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 09 December 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
How do you know RB, can you show me the numbers please?

I posted rough numbers in another thread, based on a 2nd line whip applying to both cabinet ministers and secretaries.

This forces Volpe, Sgro, Valeri, McGuire, Efford, Fontana, GUARNIERI, MCTEAGUE, PICKARD, MCKAY, MURPHY, EYKING, LASTEWKA, WILFERT, LONGFIELD,
MALHI, KARYGIANNIS out of the No camp.

There are 66 cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries who are obliged to vote for it. There are 18 New Democrats who will, and at least 50 of 55 Bloquistes should support it, as will 3 Conservatives.

Of the remaining 67 Liberal backbenchers, at least half should support it. In the last Parliament about 60% of Liberals supported it, but 17 of those against it are now obligated to support it. Half would make the number of
votes in favour 170.

I'll do a more detailed analysis of the Liberal backbenchers when I have some time. As left-leaning Chretien loyalists tended to be left out of prominent roles in government, it could be higher than my first estimates.

It's also important to remember that if the bill were to be defeated, it would change nothing. 85% of Canadians would retain their existing marriage rights, with Newfoundland and Labrador set to join them next week.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 09 December 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oh Thanks. I just found out a link that calculates the "marriage vote"

It seems to good to be true that all the cabinet ministers will vote in favor of the bill even if its a whipped vote but ah well.

So the decision from Newfoundland is known next week? Thats great.


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 09 December 2004 10:53 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Well, I think we should start a national movement to restrict the practice of law to females. As a rule, they are more empathetic than males, and I think they make better advocates and adjudicators, as studies have consistently shown that women are better listeners than men. And besides, the males just make me uncomfortable.

Interesting choice of a topic area.

But I think it is a distinction that Bev isn't (or at least, I've seen no evidence what-so-ever that she is) actively advocating that federal legislation be enacted to reverse the definition of marriage, let alone advocating that the notwithstanding clause be used to do so.

More later, but I'm late for beer now.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 11:20 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by andrewtgsadler:
But I think it is a distinction that Bev isn't (or at least, I've seen no evidence what-so-ever that she is) actively advocating that federal legislation be enacted to reverse the definition of marriage, let alone advocating that the notwithstanding clause be used to do so.

But that's not important. What's important is that males in the legal profession make me uncomfortable. Isn't that grounds enough for whatever discriminatory rules I want to propose, as long as I get the majority onside and we hold a vote?

And incidentally, Andrew, the "uncomfortable" bit was a dig at you, true, but the choice of the profession was inspired more by Michelle's comment to robbie dee —

quote:
Yeah. It wouldn't be just "blah blah blah" if it were your rights on the chopping block, as rasmus says.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 09 December 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let's get this CLEAR.You couldn't possibly accept a situation whereby one ETHNIC group was forbidden a basic right, but you're okay when a basic right is denied to QUEERS— is that the basics of it?


Wrong.
Whendid I ever suggest that I would accept any basic rights being denied to anyone?
I challenge you to find that among my comments.

Again, if I have to spell out for those who refuse to read my comments clearly: I'm delighted with the court decision. It is long past overdue.

I am distinctly uncomfortable with the overzealous desire of some to kick people out of the party based on any one issue. Democratic parties are by definition required to embrace those who hold diverse ranges of opinions.

It requires a particularly abhorrent and fundamental disagreement within the party to justify an expulsion from the party or a removal from office. Given that some of the individuals in question have expressed good faith compromises to meet the party half way, I prefer to recognize their commitments to social justice in other areas of life, rather than persecuting them for their beliefs in one area.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 09 December 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Because I'm talking about *EQUALITY*. If you're going to say a fisherman should earn as much as an architect or as little as a barroom tap jockey, I'm gonna say " Psssshhhhh— yeah right!"

Tell me why an architect should earn more than a bar tap jockey. Please.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
But what if Bev Desjarlais announced that she was going to vote against allowing Palestinians into the country? Or against Jews on some other measure? Should she be thrown out of caucus for something like that?

As Magoo has said so well so many times... "We're the NDP... we stand for almost completely equal human rights 96% of the time."

It'd look great on our lawn signs...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 09 December 2004 11:57 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
Tell me why an architect should earn more than a bar tap jockey. Please.

Length of time training? Ability?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 10 December 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by andrewtgsadler:

So now supporting the party position isn't enough? What the hell do you expect? Do I have to remind folks on this witch hunt that [b]Bev hasn't voted against the Bill yet!


What witch hunt? She publically stated she would NOT be voting in support of it. Is that supporting the party's position? I expect her to support basic human rights while in the caucus of the NDP. I do not expect her to make public statements against basic human rights while a member of the NDP caucus.

Her staying away from a vote is not acceptable either, as she is on public record saying she is against it, and it smacks of BS politics of trying to have it both ways, something that the NDP is not supposed to be all about.

quote:

This is an issue where a lot of people are uncomfortable -- and a lot of people have become more comfortable over the course of the past decade. Shutting people out because they aren't comfortable right now isn't the way to effectively address the issue.


Comfortable??? Oh my goodness, it is not like someone who runs and votes for the NDP does not know what the NDP is all about. Comfort zones have nothing to do with it! It is an meaningless excuse in my opinion.

And talk about shutting people out, just who really is being shut out in this circumstance? As it certainly is not the bigots like Bev, the real shut out victims are those wanting actual equality.

quote:

That said, if Bev actually votes against the Bill, show her to the door.


Perhaps that is what she wanted all along, to be shown the door? Because I am having a real hard time understanding why someone with her perspectives would be supporting the NDP let alone being an MP.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 10 December 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm late for the party, but let me just add this:

1) If Bev votes against the legislation, she should be expelled from the caucus and refused the right to run as a New Democrat in any future election.

2) If she abstains or stays away, she's still a bigot, but her punishment should be limited to being hissed at by nearly everyone who attends the next federal NDP convention. I volunteer to conduct the chorus.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 10 December 2004 12:16 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
"Nearly everyone"??? Who's allowed not to? Dagmar?

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 10 December 2004 12:18 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I would hope that everyone would, but some may not -- either because they *shudder* agree with her or because of some misguided notion of politeness.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 10 December 2004 01:17 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
"Nearly everyone"??? Who's allowed not to? Dagmar?

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


Uh, I'm actually for same sex marriage, numbnuts, which you would know if you were actually reading my posts.

Looks like the NDP isn't for it though. Not when it employs bigots like Monia Mazigh. You're either for human rights or you're not. But you can't be some of the time.

The NDP has no business punishing Bev when it allowed two other bigots (Mazigh and Newfoundland guy) to run in the last election. Jack has really made a big cock-up on this one by allowing these people to run in the first pace (and actually recruiting Mazigh). I guess, for him, the publicity generated by Mazigh was more important than the principle of human rights. Jack? Publicity stunt over principle? Nah... couldn't be...

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 10 December 2004 02:36 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She should be told/'encouraged' not to show up. Pretty simple. Of course it would be better to vote for the legislation, but that's not going to happen. And frankly there's no way that you can control thoughts of other people, you can only influence them. Having her not show up is an acceptable compramise. If she votes against it well that's grounds for something big.

In completely diffrent news Dagmar your page doesn't work anymore.

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 10 December 2004 02:51 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I know... unfortunately, the page was done by a friend who then took it down to update it and never put it back up (however you do these sorts of things, I'm useless with computors). This friend then embarked on a road trip to Vegas a few weeks ago and has not been heard from since (though should have been back a week ago). Hopefully, when my friend either (a) makes bail, or (b) escapes from the trunk of the Cadillac of a casino owner, the page will be back up, though doubtlessly, that will not be the first thing on his mind (a trip to the doctor for a prescription of penicillin being the first order of business no doubt!)
From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 10 December 2004 03:50 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
Uh, I'm actually for same sex marriage, numbnuts, which you would know if you were actually reading my posts.

Looks like the NDP isn't for it though. Not when it employs bigots like Monia Mazigh. You're either for human rights or you're not. But you can't be some of the time.

The NDP has no business punishing Bev when it allowed two other bigots (Mazigh and Newfoundland guy) to run in the last election. Jack has really made a big cock-up on this one by allowing these people to run in the first pace (and actually recruiting Mazigh). I guess, for him, the publicity generated by Mazigh was more important than the principle of human rights. Jack? Publicity stunt over principle? Nah... couldn't be...


Now Daggy, baby, that's not the good-natured trollery I've come to expect out of you. Simmer down. I just picked you at random, out of force of habit more than anything else, I'll admit, based largely on your contrarian, conservative views.

But I guess I would have been better picking one of Bev's defenders from up-thread, who are so concerned that Bev's right to be a bigot not be impinged.

I offer my apologies for an unmerited slur on your...err... reputation there, Daggy. I will take your professed support of SSM at face value and say, "thank you."

As to the rest of your post, I disagree with you about Monia Mazigh as an employee (and I agree with Michelle).

However, I have to agree with you *thud* ...sorry... *climbs back into chair* I say I have to agree with you *thud* ... damn it!! *back into chair* I have to agree *thud* *sigh... speaking from the floor* I have to agree with you that Jack has caused this mess himself simply by agreeing to sign Bev's papers in the first place.

He couldn't have not seen this coming... did he think he could change Bev's mind? Did he think she would just avoid the vote? Did he think it wouldn't matter? Did he THINK???

I happen to agree with Michelle and some others that abstaining isn't good enough, not on an issue of fundamental human rights. If Bev can't bring herself to see us as fully human beings, then why should I bring myself to see her with any degree of respect? If she had any real principles, she would leave the caucus of her own volition if she can't vote along with the rest of the party.

And if she doesn't, Jack should turf her. I agree that the optics and short-term "harm" of losing an MP would be more than offset by demonstrating that the NDP *does* stand for something and it *is* different — and better — than the Liberals.

In short, I agree with you again Dagmar. [HA!! I'm already on the floor!] "You're either for human rights or you're not. But you can't be some of the time."


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 10 December 2004 05:15 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I think it's time for Jack to can the "that's hypothetical" crap and say flat out "If Desjarlais votes against the bill at any stage she is out of caucus."
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 10 December 2004 10:07 AM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're either for human rights or you're not. But you can't be some of the time.

My goodness, I wish I could see the world in such simple, clear terms. What can I say - Kant and I never got along, just as Desjarlias and I don't. But seriously people, there's grey all over the place.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 10 December 2004 10:23 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
I'm late for the party, but let me just add this:

1) If Bev votes against the legislation, she should be expelled from the caucus and refused the right to run as a New Democrat in any future election.



No problem with this since if it is a whipped vote then she has gone against the views of the leader.

quote:

2) If she abstains or stays away, she's still a bigot, but her punishment should be limited to being hissed at by nearly everyone who attends the next federal NDP convention. I volunteer to conduct the chorus.

I can not agree with part two of Scott's post. In a minority parliament where one vote could make a difference depending on the Liberals who get diplomatic flu or stay away Bev's staying away could be worse. If she stays away she should be booted out as well. Either she follows the party line or does not . No ifs ands or buts.

Either she is part of the NDP whose policies - and correct me if i am incorrect - but whose polices support SSM or she is not a member of the party.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 10 December 2004 10:30 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
I think it's time for Jack to can the "that's hypothetical" crap and say flat out "If Desjarlais votes against the bill at any stage she is out of caucus."

Common we all know that Bev won't be in the House to vote on SSM when the bill comes. That was the contigency plan for Des McGrath and Monia Mazigh...and I don't expect it to be any different for Bev.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 10 December 2004 10:33 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
As long as the position is consistent, I don't have a preference for how to treat individuals the NDP considers to be bigots against gays, whether they be that priest fellow, that Monia person or that Desjarlais MP. Let them all abstain and be quiet or boot them all out - just treat people equally if the issue is considered to be that important to the NDP core identity.

Sorry for bringing this up, it just dawned on me, but this thread does say something interesting, revealing?, disturbing?, funny?, about how NDP members approach the world.

Here Canada is about to become only the 2nd (or maybe 3rd) country in the entire world to recognize something quite radical in terms of recognition of gay people's rights, and we're turning it into a negative.

God forbid the NDP should ever win an election: instead of celebrating, half the party would be in a suicidal depression, the other half in a murderous rage.

I think "we won". Should deserve at least one drink. This is weird. I'm from Quebec - when your cause wins or your party does something positive, you're supposed to be happy, get drunk, dance on tables and make love with your honey like wild rabbits.

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 10 December 2004 11:25 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is too long. Bev Desjarlais can fuck right the hell off.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca