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   » A sudden realization regarding NDP caucus

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A sudden realization regarding NDP caucus
Morty Hines
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5486

posted 02 January 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Morty Hines        Edit/Delete Post
The Federal NDP caucus contains no ethnic minorities! Comments?
From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Morty Hines:
The Federal NDP caucus contains no ethnic minorities! Comments?
With so few MPs, how diverse can you expect them to be?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Morty Hines
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5486

posted 02 January 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for Morty Hines        Edit/Delete Post
Well, the CPC is composed of 7% ethnic minorities, so for the NDP to match that meager achievement they should have sent between 1 and 2 ethinic minorities to Ottawa. It's rather shameful that we're even comparing the NDP's diversity record with the Conservatives. I don't think the NDP is walking the diversity walk.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Morty Hines ]


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 02 January 2005 12:33 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I blame the people who didn't vote for Olivia Chow...
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 02 January 2005 12:34 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or Monia Mazigh.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 January 2005 12:53 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or Edwin Laryea.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 01:01 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope nobody is suggesting that these people weren't elected because they are minorities.
From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 January 2005 01:03 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Morty Hines:
The Federal NDP caucus contains no ethnic minorities!

What do you call ethnic?

quote:
Ten per cent cited Ukrainian as their ethnic origin, Polish (6%) and Jewish (5%). There was a 12 per cent Aboriginal population.

So what about Judy Wasylycia-Leis?

quote:
Wasylycia-Leis is a Ukrainian-Canadian, and in November 2004 traveled to Ukraine to monitor developments in that country's disputed Presidential election.

Bill Siksay, born in Oshawa, sounds like a Ukrainian too:

quote:
Bill C-331 also recommends a restitution payment be made to compensate for the confiscation of property and assets from Ukrainian Canadians. Much was taken from them, but not all the confiscated wealth was returned. . .

Finally, the bill calls for a review of the Emergencies Act by the Minister of National Defence. . . We must not implement draconian security measures at the expense of the rights and dignity of people, based on ethnicity, country of origin or religious belief.

I wish I could stand here today and be clear that we had learned from our mistakes. I fear, however, with our security certificate process and the detention of some Canadians and people in Canada, of special rules for evidence and special trials that are now allowed in Canada, that we are travelling down that road once again . . . These are all issues that demand our attention in light of the experience of Ukrainian Canadians.


[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Morty Hines
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5486

posted 02 January 2005 01:14 AM      Profile for Morty Hines        Edit/Delete Post
Wilfred, perhaps I should have said visible minorities, by the striciter "ethnic minorities" definition you use I imagine that everyone is an ethnic minority in Canada. Let me put it another way: 100% of the NDP MPs are white. For heaven's sake, the Bush White House has more minorities than that. Blame the voters if you want (and what would that say about NDP voters?), but I think something is wrong here.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Morty Hines ]


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 January 2005 01:26 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
I hope nobody is suggesting that these people weren't elected because they are minorities.

I certainly wasn't. I think the point is that the NDP fielded a diverse group of candidates, not all of whom were elected.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Morty Hines
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5486

posted 02 January 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for Morty Hines        Edit/Delete Post
Come on Scott, we both know there's a difference between nominating minorities in winnable ridings and ridings in which the NDP got less than 10% last time around (Monia and Edwin.) Seems like the only way for minorities to get nominated in winnable ridings in this party is to have *very strong* personal connections with some one very high up (Jack), in which case the candidate could probably bypass whatever systemic racism was keeping everyone else down.

Results don't lie, Scott. The people the NDP are supposed to be speaking for are sitting across the floor. The 'racist' party is 6% multicoloured, the NDP is 100% refined sugar. Was this just a "bad break" for NDP minorities? How many times has it broken this badly for them, and how many more times will it have to break this way for people to see that your suggestion is imposible and the thing that is broken might be the nominating procedures or the attitudes of the members.

Let's recall, the NDP would have to have 2 ethnic MPs to *match* the Tories in diversity. Ya, maybe 2 ethnic candidates could have gotten bad breaks. But when you factor in that the NDP is a.)more popular in urban areas where minorities tend to reside and b.) supposedly the socially inclusive party, then the NDP number ought to have been 5 or 6 ethnic MPs, and I don't think anyone can believe that we're that far off just because of random chance.

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Morty Hines ]


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 01:53 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Folks, I really don't see what the problem is here. Beggars can't be choosers. And, the NDP is a beggar when it comes to votes. If the NDP had more seats, I wouldn't be surprised to see visible minorities filling a good number of them. But, to demand that the NDP have more "ethnic" MPs is a bit silly.

First they would need to get over the historically low participation of visible minorities and recent immigrants in the upper levels of political life. Then, they would have to convince people that Jack Layton would make a good PM. That's two strikes right off the bat.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 01:55 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
I certainly wasn't. I think the point is that the NDP fielded a diverse group of candidates, not all of whom were elected.
I didn't think that you were. But, some people seem to be suggesting that being a visible minority, in and of itself, is a reason to be elected. I think that's just as bad as suggesting that people shouldn't/wouldn't vote for somebody because of their minority status.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Morty Hines
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5486

posted 02 January 2005 01:59 AM      Profile for Morty Hines        Edit/Delete Post
"I didn't think that you were. But, some people seem to be suggesting that being a visible minority, in and of itself, is a reason to be elected."

By some people you must mean me, in which case you are entirely wrong. I never said to elect anybody becuase of their appearance (although it would be nice for the body that speaks for Canada to look like Canada.) I said that given that the NDP is supposed to be the more socially inclusive party shouldn't the proportion of visible minorities in its caucaus be higher than the Conservatives? Or ZERO for that matter?


From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 January 2005 02:02 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Morty Hines:
I should have said visible minorities.

Then the answer is clear:

quote:
Every voting system creates incentives for parties to bring forward certain types of candidates. In a winner-take-all system based on electing only one candidate per riding, parties have little incentive to field a diverse range of candidates. Voting systems that require parties to bring forward lists of candidates for larger regions have the opposite incentive. A more diverse array of candidates is often the winning strategy.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Morty Hines
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5486

posted 02 January 2005 02:06 AM      Profile for Morty Hines        Edit/Delete Post
Wilfred, this isn't about which type of voting system would help more minority voices be heard. This is about there being a lot more minority voices in the CPC caucus than the NDP caucus within the present system. There is no reason to believe that the CPC would not continue to kick our buts in this respect given any other system. The basis of the scientific method is controlling variables.
From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Morty Hines:
I never said to elect anybody becuase of their appearance...given that the NDP is supposed to be the more socially inclusive party shouldn't the proportion of visible minorities in its caucaus be higher than the Conservatives? Or ZERO for that matter?
First of all, I don't think it's fair to suggest that the NDP should be better than anybody else when it comes to diversity. So, the fact that they are not, shouldn't come as a surprise.

Second, the NDP isn't the body that speaks for Canada. I think that if you look at Parliament overall, you'll see a whole lot of "off white" skin.

Thirdly, people voted for visible minorities from the other parties. So, I am forced to conclude that the problem is not with the diversity of the NDP, but with the NDP itself. If people aren't voting NDP in general, the fact that they didn't vote for media superstars like Monia Mazigh is hardly significant.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 02 January 2005 03:37 AM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Monia Mazigh is a media superstar? Very few people ever heard of her.
From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 03:47 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maxx:
Monia Mazigh is a media superstar? Very few people ever heard of her.
Maybe not. But, she was talked about a lot on CBC, at least. I think that Jack Layton was trying to capitalize on what he thought was her popularity. She was as close to a "star candidate" as he could come up with.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 02 January 2005 05:23 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My goodness, Phonicidal, you're really good at the whole damning with faint praise thing.
So what's with that handle anyway?
Let's see--phoni. I don't know my languages of scholarship, but francophone, anglophone, telephone, must mean something like "speech". And "cidal" is fairly obvious. Put them together and you're what, the slayer of speech? The destroyer of dialogue? The crusher of conversation? You do a fairly good job of it, mr. Astroturf. But the handle's a bit of a giveaway. You said you were, what, a theatre major or some such? Sounds rather typical--arrogant theatre major gets hired to do some board-killing but can't resist a handle that means just that, figuring none of the boobs you're there to mindfuck will notice. You make me sick.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 02 January 2005 05:38 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
My goodness, Phonicidal, you're really good at the whole damning with faint praise thing.
Thanks. But, who was I praising? Certainly not Monia Mazigh, Jack Layton or the NDP in general. I certainly don't have much time for any of them (unless Maher Arar is ultimately cleared, then I would have more sympathy for Monia).

quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
So what's with that handle anyway?
I explained it a while ago on a different thread. But, thanks for the attempted psychoanalysis. What do I owe you?

And, why do you find it so hard to believe that somebody could care enough about what they believe in to post here FOR FREE? Isn't that what you're doing?


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 02 January 2005 05:50 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
I think the point is that the NDP fielded a diverse group of candidates, not all of whom were elected.

That was kinda my point, as well.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 January 2005 05:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I blame the people who made Olvia Chow's husband leader instead of herself.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2005 05:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Or Monia Mazigh.

What.Ever.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 02 January 2005 10:51 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love topics like this one since it reminds me of the fact that a party can nominate anyone but it is the people who vote them in.

The NDP elected a good and strong caucus. The returned veteran leadership, good new blood and people willing to fight for human rights and the struggle of all Canadians.

The fact that their are no "visable minorities" in the caucus does not limit the fight.

That being said it does appear at least from the make up of caucuses that the idea that the CPC is an all white racist club is not 100% accurate. Or it shows that even members of minority groups can vast difference in opinions and placement on the political spectrum.

The CPC has minorities, disabled even a husband and wife member team.

The Bloc has a minority member who was not born in Quebec but fights for its separation

The Liberals have minorties, women etc members in their caucus.

The thing that is great is that groups regardless of their numbers are beginning to make inroads into politics at the highest level.

We must remember that it was only in 1968 some 36 years ago that the first visable minority was even elected to the House of Commons. That was Lincoln Alexander, an African Canadian and a PC from Hamilton who in 1979 was also the first visable minority named to the Cabinet of Canada.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 02 January 2005 11:02 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Indeed. I revel in the fact that Ann Kools was the first visible minority woman appointed to the Senate, where she continues to do SUCH a fine job, like fighting tooth and nail against the adoption of Bill C-250. But hey, she's a visible minority, and that's the main thing, right?!
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 02 January 2005 11:02 AM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the visible minority blocs realise the NDP has a chance of winning elections, they will pack nomination meetings, and there will be Sikh, Vietnamese and other visibly tinted NDP members.

BTW I believe the BC NDP caucas is now 2/3 VM


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 02 January 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bleedingheart as we have seen with other communities newer Canadians of any background do not automatically flock to the NDP. They go to all parties.

You wrote:

quote:
When the visible minority blocs realise the NDP has a chance of winning elections, they will pack nomination meetings, and there will be Sikh, Vietnamese and other visibly tinted NDP members

At the same time we will see a proportional rise in their representation in the other parties as well.

Why?

The canadian demographic is shifting. This shift affects all jurisdictions and all parties. I am waiting for the time that members of all of the family of nations that makes up the Canadian fabric are represented in our legislatures whether they be at the national, provincial or municipal levels.

Only then will our society be a truley inclusive society.

Heph I think that you example of Ann Cools proves that the minority groups of Canada have views and positions across the spectrum.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 02 January 2005 11:52 AM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Bleedingheart as we have seen with other communities newer Canadians of any background do not automatically flock to the NDP. They go to all parties.

.


In fact immigrant groups historically vote for the party in power. The cons under Mulroney actually recognized that and called for increased immigration for that reason.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
f1 dad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6141

posted 02 January 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for f1 dad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Morty Hines:
Come on Scott, we both know there's a difference between nominating minorities in winnable ridings and ridings in which the NDP got less than 10% last time around (Monia and Edwin.)

[ 02 January 2005: Message edited by: Morty Hines ]


Trinity-Spadina wasn't winnable for the NDP???


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 02 January 2005 05:44 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alternately you could just nominate the best candidate you can get in each riding and let gender and race sorts itself out.

But then I still believe in the Easter Bunny.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 January 2005 06:29 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The two right wing parties in Canada have come a long way since the 1930's when the CCF and labour unionists spoke out against growing fascism in Germany, Spain and Italy. They pointed out the anti-Semitism and totalitarianism they brought with them. Political conservatives and liberals were silent, of course.

Before the general election of 1936, the Liberal Party ran advertisements in Vancouver newspapers warning voters that a vote for the CCF was "a vote for the Oriental". The left spoke out against internment of Ukrainian's and Italian's and later, Japanese during the second world war.

My-my, is there no more need of the left in Canada now that these right wing champions of human rights are on the scene ?. ha ha


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 03 January 2005 12:33 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
who was I praising? Certainly not Monia Mazigh, Jack Layton or the NDP in general. I certainly don't have much time for any of them.

You're entirely entitled to your opinion. But why do you bother posting it on Babble?

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 January 2005 05:01 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
If people aren't voting NDP in general, the fact that they didn't vote for media superstars like Monia Mazigh is hardly significant.

Actually, the NDP increased their vote last summer. With proportional representation, they would have gained more seats, or at least so sayeth Jack layton.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
patrickwebber
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3284

posted 03 January 2005 11:55 AM      Profile for patrickwebber     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Miles' interpretation of things. I think Morty is asking the wrong question. It is the voters who ultimately decide how many minorities/women/whatever end up in Parliament. Our candidate list was perhaps the most diverse of all the parties, including the Greens, and excellent candidates were among them (including Fredericton NDipper John Carty). But Miles hit the nail on the head with his point that minorities and women do not share one monolithic voice or opinion on political issues. Indeed, it is rather insulting to these groups to assume so, to assume that minorites follow a basic "tribal" policy and don't take a more nuanced approach to issues. Just as whites can't agree on things, why should any other group, even if they are a numerical minority?

I am ultimately more interested in seeing GOOD PEOPLE elected, regardless of their background. We have to take into account people's class interests moreso than their background. I once said at a public fourm on women in politics that to focus solely on whether women get into office is to focus on the wrong problem, because there is no point in electing 100 more female MPs to the Commons if they are all corporate CEOs.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 03 January 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think the whiteness of the NDP MPs is actually reflective of the demographics of the ND Party as a whole.

NDP supporters are not generally young. There are a few of them, but when you look at student parliaments the VAST majority of votes go Liberal.

In addition, the NDP is beholden to public- and private-sector unions, who do not generally represent anyone but white and aging baby boomers. The vast majority of canadians do not belong to unions.

These unions actually actively campaign to exclude new Canadians by making it impossible for their foreign credentials to be recognised.

In other examples, unions like the universal labourers unions act to actively exploit and underpay new Canadian workers.

Seeing the NDP at the top of these corrupt union power structures will be a big turnoff for the vast majority of Canadians, who are non-union, and increasingly non-white.

While the NDP has the union curse, it will not make inroads into the non-white vote.

Not very nice, I admit, but probably not too far from the truth.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 03 January 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Indeed. I revel in the fact that Ann Kools was the first visible minority woman appointed to the Senate, where she continues to do SUCH a fine job, like fighting tooth and nail against the adoption of Bill C-250. But hey, she's a visible minority, and that's the main thing, right?!

Well at least it keeps her off the street. Anyway, the issue with her isn't that she's a visible minority, or even that she's a bigot, it's that she's looney-tunes. I don't know if she's always been, but she sure is now.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 03 January 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
unless Maher Arar is ultimately cleared

How did you all let Phonicidal away with this?

In fact, this kind of false slander against a man who is INNOCENT according to Canadian Law should be enough to get rid of Phonicidal, shouldn't it?


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 January 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonicidal, this is utterly unacceptable:

"Thanks. But, who was I praising? Certainly not Monia Mazigh, Jack Layton or the NDP in general. I certainly don't have much time for any of them (unless Maher Arar is ultimately cleared, then I would have more sympathy for Monia)"

As for being, your anti-union crap belongs over on the dark side. Screw off.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 January 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well...

#1: it's in print, so it's libel, not slander.

#2: considering all the world figures who've been called war criminals here, despite the fact that they too are innocent according to Canadian law, why start turfing people now?? It would mean having to turf a lot of other babblers along with Phoni. Are you eager enough to see him gone that you'd throw out the babblers with the bathwater?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 03 January 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
unless Maher Arar is ultimately cleared
I didn't realize he was charged. I suppose the bar is set higher (lower?) for Arabs and other minorities by the likes of spermacidal. Since most of the information is classified, I guess we'll never know will we?

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 03 January 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True enough, there's more than a few US Presidents that I've libeled here as war criminals and I'm still around.

Doesn't make Phonicidal any less wrong though.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 January 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Being" is so full of shit that his eyes must be an off-colour by now.

If unions are racist bastions of whites-only lefties and the all too powerful, then why does the US and Canada own the lowest rates of unionized labour in the developed world with all the associated bloating of salaries donated to lazy and inefficient union workers ?.

Why do the same two countries also own the highest percentages and sheer numbers of lowly paid employment among richest nations ?. "..." highest rates of child poverty and infant mortality among developed nations ?.

It's the hope of conservative types like Being that our N. American rates of unionized labour will continue to decline while child poverty and unemployment continue to rise in spite of the western trend toward "flexible" labour markets.

Go for a walk downtown to any of the non-unionized private office buildings and financial institutions, Being, and note how the multi-colour ethnicity of the street below gradually disappears with every floor you climb. You're too little.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
How did you all let Phonicidal away with this?

In fact, this kind of false slander against a man who is INNOCENT according to Canadian Law should be enough to get rid of Phonicidal, shouldn't it?


I "got away with it" because it's true. He hasn't been cleared. Although, I hope he is.

But, until he is, nobody will know for sure if he did anything wrong or not. Even if he had, he didn't deserve to be tortured in Syria. But, his mistreatment at the hands of Syria and maybe the USA and Canada does not prove that he never a) did anything wrong or b) got caught up in something without his knowledge and was a legitimate suspect.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the inquiry will resolve those questions.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Non-partisan partisan:
I didn't realize he was charged.
I never meant that he was charged in a formal sense. But, he certainly has been "charged" in the court of public opinion. And, there may, in fact, be legitimate secret evidence against him that we don't and never will know about. And, he has used the words "clear my name" on a number of occasions. So, I didn't think it was racist for me to use the same terminology.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 03 January 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
With so few MPs, how diverse can you expect them to be?

Whenever I've spoken to elected MP's or MPP's - particularly from governing parties (So mostly Liberals and some Tories). The one comment that has come back again and again. (Although I'm sure the 2004 election is an exception to this).

"Winning the nomination was tough, but the election was a breeze".

Why is this? With few exceptions most seats are won due to a sweep.

Do we want the NDP caucus to be more representative? We'll need to run a campaign that is strong enough to create a sweep.

I don't think this is a problem with our nomination process or who gets into "targeted ridings", I think its a problem with our central campaigns and thus far our inability to create sweeps. (At least federally...we've managed it provincially at least)


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 03 January 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Fact is, you don't generally get a union job unless you have a parent or an uncle or a friend of the family already in the job.

This automatically excludes outsiders like newcomers to Canada.

As the NDP is the party of these union people, the NDP wants to exclude newcomers to Canada and others like me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2005 04:31 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Being,

Your assumption about the membership of the NDP lacks fact and substance. While the NDP has as members members of Unions that is not the majority of its membership.

Good spin though. The truth is that the NDP as with all other party's across the spectrum is trying to and must do a better job in branching out into all communities across Canada. BUt at the same time recognize that people think individually and support parties not on just ethnic lines.

A minority member is not required to defend the rights of that group. Although it would be nice to always have that. It is not a reality.

I expect my MP and MPP to represent my rights as one of their constituents regardless of whether or not we are of the same race, creed or background.
Let's see Oshawa


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 January 2005 04:31 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What utter crap:

"Fact is, you don't generally get a union job unless you have a parent or an uncle or a friend of the family already in the job".

The only unions traditionally associated with such practices were the building trades and the dockers - and such practices had to do with other forms of corruption.

I was involved in MANY union organising drives where the vast majority of the workforce - including the union organisers - were immigrants or people of recent immigrant origin. Still thinking of the hotel workers' organising campaign spearheaded by utterly fearless Chilean refugees at the Méridien. (Yay!!!). Even more than the wage increase, the workers of immigrant origin and/or of colour were very proud when they were finally treated with R-E-S-P-E-C-T!


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 03 January 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
The problem is, the NDP gives unions special privileges in voting for a leader and other things. So long as they do that, they will be seen as being the party of the exclusive unions that want to exploit undocumented workers and exclude others.

Whether all the members are union members as well is not really relevant. At the top of the structure we find the unions and the NDP in bed with each other.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 January 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As well they should be. The bourgeois parties get a lot of support from corporations and employer associations.

Here in Québec, with the process of fusion of the UFP, Option citoyenne and other independent leftists, support from progressive trade unionists will be essential, as will support from the women's movement and other social movements.

I fail to see why you are posting here. You are trying to convince people on a progressive board to become right-wing?

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 03 January 2005 05:25 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fact is, you don't generally get a union job unless you have a parent or an uncle or a friend of the family already in the job.
That's nepotism. There's also patronage.

Actually, a few unions actually elect many of their staff (like the postal workers and Ontario high school teachers). I think that's the way to go for a lot of positions.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 03 January 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
No, I have no interest in persuading people to become right wing. I don't think pointing out the corruption and nepotism in unions is right wing, either. Why would I be right wing? I cannot get a union job because of corruption and nepotism, and because of that I make barely more than minimum wage. If anything, I am more left wing than union people who vote for people like Mike Harris, Dalton McGuinty, and Stephen Harper.

The point was made that the NDP only seems to attract stodgy white baby boomers, and I was trying to explain that their connection to the union movement is probably a reason for this. As a non-union worker, I do not see anything in the NDP which can help me. I just see them as another one of the elites, supported by thugs (like Fidel).

As I said, most people do not belong to unions, and even see unions as excessive consumers of their before- and after-tax money. People on minimum wage taking the subway to work where the subway employees make $18 an hour is a good example. The price is so high on the subway now because of unionization that it is difficult to afford a metropass.

I think this is why the NDP will be seen as being fiscally irresponsible even though it is probably a bad rap.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 January 2005 06:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Go for it! Give 'em hell!

Although I dont think you should blame unions for raising the cost on things. In my view you should be paid more not subway workers less.

But a lot of this other critique of the class basis of the NDP is pretty valid.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
periyar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7061

posted 03 January 2005 07:00 PM      Profile for periyar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are people so resistant to acknowledging that the marginalization of people of colour could ever exist within the NDP or unions?
The question that keeps running through my mind whenever anti-racism is raised on babble and the same defensiveness comes up is what do you gain by sidelining and minimiazing the existence of racism- it is sooooo frustrating to me and incredibly discouraging to read this on a progressive board.

One more thought- the labelling of individuals, who bring up relevant issues on race as trolls is also incomprehensible to me- a person's political orientation does not make it any less valid. It's just another sad tactic to marginalize anti-racism issues which by the way will not go away as much as some people would like it to.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]


From: toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 07:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
periyar, I am so glad to see you. I shall PM you. Oh, thank heaven.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

How did you all let Phonicidal away with this?

In fact, this kind of false slander against a man who is INNOCENT according to Canadian Law should be enough to get rid of Phonicidal, shouldn't it?


Yes.

quelar, this is the first time I've read through this thread, and I see lagatta below agreeing with you, and I agree too, without going any further.

We have a legal problem here. Please write to the moderator.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 January 2005 07:34 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The other parties give big business special priviledges and are in bed with those who are exploiting you, why are you not dissing them? Why do you think they have something for you and not the NDP? As they are out to exploit you by continuing low wages, ya know.

Furthermore, unions, at least here in BC that I have experienced, are very diverse with many visible minorities. These would be, UFCW, PPWC and IWA, plus hospital and government unions. I think you are taking a very narrow viewpoint.

Please tell what you think the other parties have for you the exploited worker?


quote:
Originally posted by Being:
The problem is, the NDP gives unions special privileges in voting for a leader and other things. So long as they do that, they will be seen as being the party of the exclusive unions that want to exploit undocumented workers and exclude others.

Whether all the members are union members as well is not really relevant. At the top of the structure we find the unions and the NDP in bed with each other.



From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 07:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If we could all lower our voices ...

There are a lot of contradictions that deserve attention in this thread. Morty started us off by taunting us with the higher percentages of visible minorities in the CPC caucus and, would you believe, in the Bush White House.

Those are spectres worth deconstructing, no?

The Liberal party is probably an easier deconstruction, but the one that should bother knee-deeps more.

And yes: we should have won Trinity-Spadina.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 03 January 2005 07:47 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
I "got away with it" because it's true. He hasn't been cleared. Although, I hope he is.

Why would he require "clearing" when he's never been charged?

quote:

But, until he is, nobody will know for sure if he did anything wrong or not. Even if he had, he didn't deserve to be tortured in Syria. But, his mistreatment at the hands of Syria and maybe the USA and Canada does not prove that he never a) did anything wrong or b) got caught up in something without his knowledge and was a legitimate suspect.

It's already emerged that Arar was never a central figure in any RCMP investigation. He was a "peripheral figure" or "potential witness". But thanks for confirming exactly why we need the public inquiry and why laws like bill C-36 and the one governing Security Certificates need to be reviewed. It's because people who don't quite have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" firmly ensconced in their noggins are only too happy to assume the worst when someone in law enforcement screws up. In some small minds, there will always be a cloud of suspicion hanging over Arar despite the fact that not even Syria could find anything with which to charge him.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 January 2005 07:53 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look it is very easy to say that good candidate lost their respective elections. But that is the truth.

Were NDP candidate representative of the minorities that live in Canada yes. Did the candidates reflect the ethnicity of the ridings they were running. Well I would assume yes. But no riding is 100% any race or creed.

So what happened. Obviously the people of riding chose (whether we like the first past the post or not is not relelvant because that is the system that all candidates agreed to run under in 2004)but the people chose another candidate.

What can be done. Well keep nominating the good candidates, run a better campaign if the last campaign was lacking. Simply put. Do better next time.

Is it distressing that the CPC has a better percentage of "minority MPs"? Well I think that it is great that other parties nominated and elected members of minority groups. Most have been demanding that the CPC and its predecessors wake up and recognize that Canada is not just white men. Well they did.

I can disagree with the politics that these elected members put forward. But I will never say that having them hold elected office is a bad thing.

I have never heard a community leader stand up and say that having a member of their community elected to office is a bad thing because of the party that they represent. Most community leaders and community members are happy to be represented.

And most first time MPs who are breaking a barrier for their race or creed are ecstatic to being provided the opportunity to represent not only their riding constituents but also their brothers and sisters from their specific community.

Edited to add:

I wonder if when Lincoln Alexander was first elected to the house of commons literally breaking the colour barrier if the African Canadian community was angered that a Tory was elected or happy that an African Canadian was elected.

I would assume they were happy at the representation. If that is the case then I wonder if today's barrier breakers are looked at much the same way.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 08:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Miles, I honestly don't think that appealing to the bourgeois proprieties is going to help us as we deconstruct this pickle.

What are the factors that help a party like the CPC, whose record on tolerance and inclusiveness is complicated, at least, to elect a number of VM members? (And could looking at the Bush White House, which someone so helpfully tossed into the discussion, help us in this meditation?)

Is CPC support not demonstrably more overwhelmingly concentrated in certain regions and ridings than NDP support? Could that be affecting strategic choices of candidates? Especially in a party of cynics?

I don't mean to minimize the problems that the NDP has, both with engaging immigrant communities and with the labour movement, which has similar problems of its own. I do sort of object to being called a "stodgy white" person, mind.

It is no excuse for us, no full excuse, to recognize that many immigrant communities, especially of the first generation, feel very little sympathy for socialist politics. That is a reality. It would be better if we recognized it, and thought about it, and learned how to address it better.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 08:11 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
We have a legal problem here. Please write to the moderator.
No. There is no legal problem. I have not said that Arar is guilty of anything. But, there certainly is that impression left in the air. All of the authorities involved have denied doing something wrong. So, I don't know what happened and who screwed up. Therefore, I am reserving judgement on the man (and his wife) until the results of the inquiry are made public.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 08:15 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. Maher Arar is innocent.

You are putting this board in legal jeopardy by continuing to cast doubt on his innocence.

Shut up, Phonicidal. And everyone else, please write to the moderator.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 January 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
What are the factors that help a party like the CPC, whose record on tolerance and inclusiveness is complicated, at least, to elect a number of VM members? (And could looking at the Bush White House, which someone so helpfully tossed into the discussion, help us in this meditation?)


I have always thought that the best way to win at politics is to a) think up a good idea and implement it before the other guy. and b)if that fails take a look at what the opposition is doing, exploit it and do it better.

Fair enough that the CPC record on both minority rights and VM membership is dismal at best as you stated but they did recruit and elect minority members to what many thought was a racist party. And I dare say they elected many more than most would have ever dreamed would happen.

So looking at the success of the CPC is a good thing to do.

For the NDP to do better I think that one must look at why the CPC and others have succeeded.

The argument regarding the Liberals has always been that they were the party in power when "I came to Canada and have always supported them".

If that was the only reason then those who came to Canada during the PC governing days would only support the PCs. I do not think that is the case. So why do the Liberals do so well?

I think that a couple of things must be recognized.

First is the recognition that no group will blindly support just one party. And when members of the same minority group run for the nomination for all 3 parties in the election we must look at the break down of the vote to see what the divide really is.

If we go by national polls then and my numbers will be wrong but as an example we can assume that in any community roughly 40% support the Liberals, 20% the CPC 17% the NDP.
Therefore how does the NDP build on its 17% share of the market.

Second a good national campaign leads to in most cases more momentum in the local races.Did the national campaign do enough to help the local races? I do not know.

Third, did people flock to the Liberals to prevent a CPC win? If so why did they not flock the to NDP to force a minority parliament.

As far as the Bush cabinet goes. I know that some democratic strategists friends of mine are looking at how Bush and the RNC was able to increase their support in the Hispanic community by 15% in the election.

The last issue is as you wrote Skdadl " many immigrant communities, especially of the first generation, feel very little sympathy for socialist politics."


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 03 January 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
No. There is no legal problem. I have not said that Arar is guilty of anything. But, there certainly is that impression left in the air.

An impression you seem only too happy to encourage.

quote:
All of the authorities involved have denied doing something wrong. So, I don't know what happened and who screwed up.

Then you're not paying attention. We already know that the RCMP violated it's own policies by sharing information and documents with American authorities without putting the proper "holds" on them. We already know that the RCMP assured the Americans that the information they were supplying had been properly vetted and confirmed when in fact some of it was false. We already know that when the RCMP learned Arar was being detained in New York, two of the agents on the related task force wanted to fly down but they couldn't scrape together the frickin' air fare. (That part isn't exactly wrong, just completely incompetent.) And we already know that when Chrétien finally decided to get involved and wanted the RCMP to indicate in writing that they had no evidence of wrongdoing on Arar's part, an RCMP commissioner declined to do so even though they, in fact, had no evidence of wrongdoing on Arar's part.

quote:
Therefore, I am reserving judgement on the man (and his wife) until the results of the inquiry are made public.

All of the things I've noted above are already part of the public record, so forgive me if I take this with several pounds of salt. The purpose of the inquiry isn't to pass judgement on Arar and his wife. It's to pass judgement on CSIS and the RCMP and to determine how an innocent man - innocent because he's never been proven guilty - ended up in a Syrian prison for a year.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 03 January 2005 08:31 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*side stepping the ridiculously uninformed union bashing*

I disagree with Guepe in that I belive there are problems with the nomination process and who gets into targeted ridings - it isn't as bad as it used to be (electoral studies showed that the NDP and the Conservatives, federally, used to use women as token candidates in less winnable ridings - it has changed such that, for the elections in the 1990's, when taking factors like incumbency into account, women in several parties actually had a better chance of getting elected. I haven't seen data for any election past 1997, but women's representation has been stagnating/declining in the majority of jurisdictions in Canada - Lortie was wrong). But the NDP had trouble putting together a diverse slate with regards to women this election, and we have in the past been slow to recognize and act on the need to bring members of different ethnic communities inside the party, in addition to the often excellent work we do on their behalf.

I don't think we can say that this is a problem purely with voters, or only with the internal party. The NDP needs to diversify both its membership, leadership and electoral offerings, and it needs to do so regardless of who is friends with the leader. The changes to the affimative action policy following the public financing changes acted to disadvantage women and other equity seeking groups in seeking the nomination - this needs to be publicly brought up, and changes to the law need to be made so that our (at times minimal) efforts aren't hamstrung. There may need to be more central control in the nomination process, because in many areas our nominees were not representative (I'm thinking most obviously of Saskatchewan at this moment).

While I don't like the way it was brought up, possibly with underanded motives, I think this is a really important question. With any systemic discrimination, we need to start asking WHY, removing barriers, not attacking straw men on how "I'd rather see the best person elected than a diverse caucus." Like competency and ethinicity, or gender, or such, are mutually exclusive, or even often contradictory. Women in politics tend to be overqualified compared to male candidates; I haven't seen any new data, but i'd assume the same holds for visible minorities and other equity seeking groups.

Who is elected, and their personal characteristics, does matter, both to me in that a lack of persons shows the reality of discrimination and the need for symbolic representation and role modeling, and to their opinion on policy - a good number of Canadian electoral studies have shown this (party identification is of course the best predictor, but there are noticable differences based for socio-economic status and ethnicity, more significant than for gender, interestingly).

*yarg, sorry for the rambling*


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2005 08:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's bullshit and you would know it if your brain hadn't atrophied hanging out with right-wing racists on other threads from other boards, Phonicidal.

The inquiry isn't determining whether or not Arar is guilty of terrorism. The inquiry is trying to determine how an INNOCENT Canadian citizen was deported to Syria and tortured.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 08:39 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
No. Maher Arar is innocent.

You are putting this board in legal jeopardy by continuing to cast doubt on his innocence.


My assumption is that he is innocent. And, I have already said that I hope the inquiry clears his name. According to the CBC he has said as much himeself:
quote:
Arar says the purpose of the inquiry is also to clear his name.
But, let us not forget that Arar has publicly accused the USA and Canada of wrongdoing:
quote:
"My own government is not without responsibility," he added. "We know now that the Canadian government sent information to the United States about me."
So, if we automatically accept Arar's total innocence, without getting the full results from the inquiry, are we not also condemning two countries without all of the facts(three when you add Syria who I don't dispute is in the wrong)? That's why I am reserving judgement.

FOR THE RECORD: I am not saying that Arar committed any crime. I suspect that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And, I hope that the full results of the inquiry can be made public.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: Phonicidal ]


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2005 08:45 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread has become an argument of kill the right wing troll. Not that I know if he is a right wing troll or not but that is the theme

And the reply of I did nothing wrong.

So very simply. Can any lawyers out there please state without prejudice or bias towards the posters or the replyers if what Phonicidal wrote crosses the legal line.

The point is not who wrote the post rather if what was written is good, bad, or ugly.

Please for the love of god send me a lawyer.

[ 03 January 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 08:47 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
The inquiry isn't determining whether or not Arar is guilty of terrorism. The inquiry is trying to determine how an INNOCENT Canadian citizen was deported to Syria and tortured.
I don't think he is guilty of terrorism. I watched a great deal of the inquiry on TV. So, I know something about what has gone on there. But, like I mentioned before, Arar believes that the inquiry is also to clear his name.

By the way, if anybody can demonstrate how anything I've said is illegal (and puts babble in legal jeopardy) I will gladly edit my posts. PM, me if you like. But, nobody has done that yet. And, I am not going to "shut up" just because people disagree with something that they think I said.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 03 January 2005 08:50 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
This thread has become an argument of kill the right wing troll. Not that I know if he is a right wing troll or not but that is the theme

And the reply of I did nothing wrong.


That's a good point. If somebody wants to start a thread about this, fine. Otherwise, this is probably WAY off topic.

P.S. To ease your minds, I am neither "right-wing (although I was when I played hockey), nor am I a troll (although I do live under a bridge).


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 08:56 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, if we automatically accept Arar's total innocence, without getting the full results from the inquiry, are we not also condemning two countries without all of the facts(three when you add Syria who I don't dispute is in the wrong)? That's why I am reserving judgement.

Arar's innocence, in a democracy, is the default position.

The inquiry has been mounted because there seems to be evidence against Other People.

There is no evidence against Mr Arar. There is considerable against some others, and that is what the inquiry is trying to sort through.

Of course, those persons are also innocent until proved guilty, although at the moment they aren't up against that sort of proceeding, only a fact-finding inquiry.

And, of course, some of them have diplomatic immunity. Like Mr Celluci. Or Mr Ashcroft. Such a shame, but we're not going to hear from them, are we?

But we might find out a little bit more about our own beloved RCMP (burn any barns lately?) and CSIS. Well ... maybe.

Go, Justice O'Connor!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2005 08:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jpj, whenever you are feeling the puzzlement you obviously do at the moment, please: write to the moderator:

audra(at)rabble(dot)ca


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 03 January 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
jpj, whenever you are feeling the puzzlement you obviously do at the moment, please: write to the moderator:

audra(at)rabble(dot)ca


Skdadl if I wrote a moderator everytime I felt puzzlement I would be banned not for what I post but for abuse of moderators

But I will take your suggestion under advisement


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

posted 03 January 2005 09:31 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I disagree with Guepe in that I belive there are problems with the nomination process and who gets into targeted ridings - it isn't as bad as it used to be (electoral studies showed that the NDP and the Conservatives, federally, used to use women as token candidates in less winnable ridings - it has changed such that, for the elections in the 1990's, when taking factors like incumbency into account, women in several parties actually had a better chance of getting elected. I haven't seen data for any election past 1997, but women's representation has been stagnating/declining in the majority of jurisdictions in Canada - Lortie was wrong). But the NDP had trouble putting together a diverse slate with regards to women this election, and we have in the past been slow to recognize and act on the need to bring members of different ethnic communities inside the party, in addition to the often excellent work we do on their behalf.

I don't think I properly articulated my point.

My point is that we need to stop looking at a limited set of ridings as "winnable" and trying to ensure a measure of equalities in the "winnable" ridings.

I'm saying that we need to run smarter central campaigns and be able to win more ridings.

If we run smarter campaigns and win more ridings we will elect more women and visible minorities.

I think the emphasis must be placed on better overall campaigns rather then having a narrow focus on a flawed but improving nomination process.

A better campaign with a strong narrative will bring people into the party. They'll be attracted to us.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 03 January 2005 10:56 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Indeed. I revel in the fact that Ann Kools was the first visible minority woman appointed to the Senate, where she continues to do SUCH a fine job, like fighting tooth and nail against the adoption of Bill C-250. But hey, she's a visible minority, and that's the main thing, right?!

quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Well at least it keeps her off the street. Anyway, the issue with her isn't that she's a visible minority, or even that she's a bigot, it's that she's looney-tunes. I don't know if she's always been, but she sure is now.

That's just my point, RB... apparently, for some people anyway, that is an overriding concern. I say go with the best qualified and let gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. sort itself out. I think it's just as stupid to vote for someone because he or she is a particular race, sex, sexual orientation, religion/non-religion, etc. as it is not to vote for them because they are.

But I'm kinda goofy that way.


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

posted 03 January 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, I voted for a straight white guy over a gay guy and a black woman in the last election. Does this make me a sexist, racist homophobe, or just someone not willing to vote for Bill Graham and the Conservative sacrificial lamb?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 03 January 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I prolly would have voted the same way, RB...
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 January 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Being:
As a non-union worker, I do not see anything in the NDP which can help me. I just see them as another one of the elites

Sounds to me like you need a union.
Rather than pissing on the single institution that could improve your situation, why don't you do something useful, like help start one?
Elites do their best to make sure there's fewer and weaker unions, and everyone else can be paid less and less. But apathetic fools like you certainly help.

Meanwhile, I don't know if you've heard, but unions work under this weird institution called "management" who do the hiring. They decide who gets hired, not the other union people. Trust me, they don't listen to us. It requires an astounding degree of ignorance to imagine otherwise. And while there's nothing wrong with ignorance per se, if you don't know a damn thing the approach to take is to *ask* about unions, not to spout off about them.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 04 January 2005 12:03 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I ran provincially against two women, one a Harris-Eves Cabinet member.
I had progressive women tell me they liked what I was saying but they could only vote for a woman, nothing else mattered so they were waiting to see which one looked like she had a chance of winning. This was despite the fact that I was the only candidate talking about equality issues, child care, and many other similar issues. But I had the wrong plumbing so for those women nothing else mattered.
That was their choice to make and I respect it. However, I do not want the hopes and aspirations of my daughters constrained by anyone, or anything, but the same is true of my son.

My solution -- we need to win more ridings.

That means abandoning the whole 'winnable' thing. Ridings become winnable because we put resources into them. We won a whole whack of 'unwinnable' ridings in Ontario in 1990 and guess what -- we were government.

We nominate great candidates from all kinds of backgrounds. I have attended two candidates schools in the last two years. I was greatly impressed by what a very talented and very diverse group of people I was getting to meet and learn from. We relect the hopes and dreams of a people, Canadians. We were not shy about that once. It was where great ideas like universal public health care came from.

The trick is to stop running NDP candidates and start electing them.

[ 04 January 2005: Message edited by: Grant R. ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 04 January 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A better campaign with a strong narrative will bring people into the party. They'll be attracted to us.

I don't think we can build a strong electoral campaign on a weak party - we are not am empty vessel, pretty packaging with messaging as determined by spin doctors, and if we are, that is a problem. We won't have a diverse set of candidates if we don't work the ground between elections, build in communitites, and use that building to create winnable ridings. Landslide elections, at the federal level are rare, and NOT something created by a central campaign, but rather something acted upon by a central campaign. We can build winnable ridings (ask Mel Swart). We can build a winnable party. We cannot build it in a five week election campaign though.

*edited to add*

Not that I think there isn't a role for the central campaign. But I am still a firm beleiver that elections are won on the doorstep as much as lost on tv.

[ 04 January 2005: Message edited by: swirrlygrrl ]


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 04 January 2005 12:41 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
we are not am empty vessel, pretty packaging with messaging as determined by spin doctors
Probably not. But, I think Jack Layton is. Maybe turfing him is a start.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 04 January 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonicidal, why don't you educate us then, which NDPer would you vote for if they were leader?
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 04 January 2005 12:53 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
Phonicidal, why don't you educate us then, which NDPer would you vote for if they were leader?
I'm not generally an NDP voter. And, we don't vote for a PM in Canada. But, I like Bill Blaikie.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 January 2005 02:54 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Actually, the NDP increased their vote last summer. With proportional representation, they would have gained more seats, or at least so sayeth Jack layton.

No doubt about it. And some of them would have been visible minorities.

With proportional representation, more voters would have voted NDP, unafraid of wasting their votes. But we don't know how many, so let's just take last June's NDP voters. The NDP would have elected 5 more MPs in BC, 3 in Alberta, 3 in Saskatchewan, 19 (12 more) in Ontario, 3 in Quebec, 2 (1 more) in New Brunswick, 1 in PEI, and 1 in Newfoundland and Labrador. (No improvement in Manitoba and Nova Scotia.)

How many visible minorities? For a start, Olivia, Malcolm Azania in Edmonton, maybe John Chan in Calgary, maybe Omar Aktouf in Montreal (is he visible enough?)

But perhaps Vancouver proves the real point. Nominating one riding at a time, whose place was it to nominate a visible minority? But if you are at a big Lower Mainland nomination meeting to nominate a list of candidates where the top five likely will be MPs, would you dare vote to put five white people -- four of whom are men -- at the head of the list? I doubt it.

(By the way, I'm assuming the Lower Mainland has 20 MPs, 12 from local ridings, 8 regional, the NDP gets at least 25% of the votes as it did last June, so if the NDP wins two of the local seats it then gets three more regional MPs, and if the two local winners were among the top five on the regional list, then the result is the top five are elected one way or the other.)


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 January 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Being:
I cannot get a union job because of corruption and nepotism, and because of that I make barely more than minimum wage. If anything, I am more left wing than union people who vote for people like Mike Harris, Dalton McGuinty, and Stephen Harper.

The point was made that the NDP only seems to attract stodgy white baby boomers, and I was trying to explain that their connection to the union movement is probably a reason for this. As a non-union worker, I do not see anything in the NDP which can help me. I just see them as another one of the elites, supported by thugs (like Fidel).


So lets summarize. Because unions are gaining living wages for their stodgy white workers, then the NDP must stand for cliquish white racism ?. You do realize that this is an extremely weak argument ?. So, a round of low wages for everybody then, whether you're white or newly landed, eh. You know something, this same old conservative crapola hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried. Low wages beget lower wages, unless you can show otherwise.

What the evidence does show is that union wages tend to apply an upward pressure on wages of surrounding workers in the same category. And living/union wages tends to circulate more money in a local economy, good for the baker, the butcher and the fish monger, not just stodgy, white working class slobs whom you've just promoted by an economic class, Being.


quote:

As I said, most people do not belong to unions, and even see unions as excessive consumers of their before- and after-tax money. People on minimum wage taking the subway to work where the subway employees make $18 an hour is a good example. The price is so high on the subway now because of unionization that it is difficult to afford a metropass.

So most working class slobs don't belong to cliquish, peninsula club type unions where they have beer and wine on tap and marble tile floors in the workers lounge ?. I had no idea, really.
And yet what numbers there are of the fat cat union types are making life miserable for the underpaid and overworked non-unionized of us working for low wage philanthropy ?. You mean it was a complete waste for my mama to have paid for my school text books ?.

It's my turn to jump to conclusions: You're disappointed that a certain number of us are making a living wage, whether we're white or what not, and thanks for pointing out this colour differential, I was so naive about that. But where is your evidence that non-unionized contractors are any cheaper than unionized when the final bills comes in ?. Please produce some supporting evidence for this, if you will, TOS ...er I mean, Being.

quote:

I think this is why the NDP will be seen as being fiscally irresponsible even though it is probably a bad rap.

I don't think the NDP is fiscally irresponsible, Being. In fact, some Euro-socialist and Scandinavian countries don't come close to owning the debt levels that we in the most politically conservative nations do. The NDP has never formed a federal government, so how do you arrive at such wild assumptions?. Again, show us the money.

[ 04 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 04 January 2005 05:01 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grant R.:
I ran provincially against two women, one a Harris-Eves Cabinet member. I had progressive women tell me they liked what I was saying but they could only vote for a woman, nothing else mattered so they were waiting to see which one looked like she had a chance of winning. This was despite the fact that I was the only candidate talking about equality issues, child care, and many other similar issues. But I had the wrong plumbing so for those women nothing else mattered.
That was their choice to make and I respect it.

I don't. I have to accept it, but respect it? Never. It's stupid, pure and simple.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 04 January 2005 10:49 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, we ARE in the midst of candidate search for the next federal election. If folks have suggestions of interesting candidates they think we should approach, I suggest they contact the Candidate Search Coordinator at federal office. As a member of the committee, I would certainly love to hear some names of women and visible minority candidates we should be approaching to run - in any riding, not just "winnable" ones.

Of course, approaching them to run is just the first step - we have to get them nominated as well. And then elected. So if folks want to see visible minority candidates WIN, they should step up to the plate, join a riding association, help out the candidate of your choice, etc etc.


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 04 January 2005 11:39 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I may offer an opinion:

I think we should let Morty Hines and Phonicidal have this thread all to themselves.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 04 January 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
You know, we ARE in the midst of candidate search for the next federal election. If folks have suggestions of interesting candidates they think we should approach, I suggest they contact the Candidate Search Coordinator at federal office. As a member of the committee, I would certainly love to hear some names of women and visible minority candidates we should be approaching to run - in any riding, not just "winnable" ones.

Of course, approaching them to run is just the first step - we have to get them nominated as well. And then elected. So if folks want to see visible minority candidates WIN, they should step up to the plate, join a riding association, help out the candidate of your choice, etc etc.



Thanks!

(Did that myself back when I joined this party)


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

posted 04 January 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
I think we should let Morty Hines and Phonicidal have this thread all to themselves.

Now, now. Just because it took Morty six months to look at a group of 19 people and realize they're all white...

Not to mention how many of them were incumbents. The NDP elected a handful of new MPs, including the leader and Ed Broadbent. The problem was not that not enough visible minorities were elected, it's that not enough new MPs were elected.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 04 January 2005 04:06 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The problem was not that not enough visible minorities were elected, it's that not enough new MPs were elected.

BOTH of these are problems. But it is wrong to assume that the larger the NDP caucus gets, the more diverse it will necessarily get. It requires effort, and vigilance.

And might I say Vicky, excellent suggestion.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 04 January 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
The NDP elected a handful of new MPs, including the leader and Ed Broadbent.
Errr, I'm no NDP expert. But, Ed Broadbent being called "new?" I distinctly remember him from when I was about 9 years old.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 04 January 2005 04:21 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
He was not an incumbent, nor was the leader, but they were special situations that made them more like incumbents than rookie MPs.

Basically my point was that when you took the incumbents and those special cases, there weren't many opportunities for new people. Other candidates, whether they were minorities or not, would not likely have won either Broadbent or Layton's riding.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 04 January 2005 08:12 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We spend too much time being preoccupied on the big prizes. If we did our groundwork on the stepping stones we wouldn't have to worry about the rest.

For starters we need to bring minorities into the NDP, one member at a time. Then we need to support quality candidates to make the breakthrough into public life. Have them be the master of ceremonies at a party fundraiser. Encourage them to be members/leaders of internal committees. Support them when they apply for appointments to community boards, committees and associations.

From there it is a small step to running for local government. Of course this is where the most help is needed. Once we have a strong representative group of community leaders, natural politicians will rise from them - we will not have to manufacture them.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jack of spades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7645

posted 05 January 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for Jack of spades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Having spent a lot of time reading through this topic, I would like to say a few things related to the discussion about visible minorities (VM) in general. My perspective is that of a union family in BC from many years back. Also, I am married to a person who is from a VM but I do not belong to a VM.

60 years ago or more, the VM were not represented or advocated for until unions and the CCF and other leftist organizations did so. There followed a natural bonding between the two that lasted a long time. But the children of the VM and other more recent VM immigrants did not feel the same loyalty to the NDP because the problems had been reduced. Right now we are seeing the result of this movement away from the left to some extent. The NDP could rely on the VM leaders to deliver the vote and so it would happen. There was was an expectation developed perhaps that because the left supported the VM groups when it was hard to do so that the groups should be eternally indebted to the NDP. Unfortunately, it's breaking (or has broken) down as years go by. It is not enough to do one good deed. People must continue to make the difficult choices. We will win over voters and supporters as it becomes obvious that the right is impaling itself. When the pie in the sky doesn't fly anymore.


From: West | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 January 2005 08:06 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great post. These guys above you don't know Jack.

[ 05 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 05 January 2005 11:57 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We need to be doing more than patiently waiting for the right wing to collapse.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 05 January 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Money will keep the right wing going, fuelling places like the Fraser Institute and people like Dalton McGuinty.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 January 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is post 100! Just a note.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 05 January 2005 02:47 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
101!!!
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 05 January 2005 03:21 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
You know, we ARE in the midst of candidate search for the next federal election.

The riding associations, federal and provincial, do need some central help in performing outreach exercises for Minority, Aboriginal and female candidates. The terse name, address and phone number type information on membership lists simply doesn't equip a local riding association search committee with the information necessary to contact everyone they should be in touch with.

It's also a central party task to make the outreach operation fully credible, with initial phone calls coming from someone "high up" in the party, preferably an elected legislator if not the Leader.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 05 January 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just curious, maybe PM me with the answer, but what is the origin of the 100 post rule? And, when threads stall at 30 or 40, they can be shut down before 100 can't they?
From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 January 2005 06:06 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When a thread gets much past 100 posts, it can become a problem for those who are on dial-up. A couple of babblers have reported that trying to access threads that are overly long has caused their systems to hang.

As for the threads that stall, they're not hurting anything. Why close them? Occasionally one will come back to life when there's a new development in the relevant story.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 January 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phonicide wrote:

quote:
I certainly don't have much time for any of them (unless Maher Arar is ultimately cleared, then I would have more sympathy for Monia).

Why would the "clearing" of Arar cause you to have more sympathy for Monia?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 05 January 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Why would the "clearing" of Arar cause you to have more sympathy for Monia?
If you want to PM me, fine. But, this is not an issue relvant to the thread.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 05 January 2005 07:34 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
As for the threads that stall, they're not hurting anything. Why close them? Occasionally one will come back to life when there's a new development in the relevant story.
Obviously, there's no reason to close a thread just because nobody feels like posting. But, if by post 20, you're already into the ""Fuck You" vs. "No, Fuck YOU", what's the use of keeping the thing open?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 05 January 2005 07:44 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you want to PM me, fine. But, this is not an issue relvant to the thread.

You were the one who libeled him in this thread in the first place, you shouldn't be able to duck it privately now.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 January 2005 09:08 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phonicidal:
But, if by post 20, you're already into the ""Fuck You" vs. "No, Fuck YOU", what's the use of keeping the thing open?

That isn't the situation you originally referred to. In fact, threads have been closed because they were quickly deteriorating and weren't likely to improve. In the opinion of a moderator.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 05 January 2005 09:57 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
You were the one who libeled him in this thread in the first place, you shouldn't be able to duck it privately now.
As previously mentioned, if somebody wants to open a new thread, fine. But, I'm not going to discuss it here.

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 January 2005 11:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you want to PM me, fine. But, this is not an issue relvant to the thread.

Why, then, was it an issue relevant to the thread when you brought it up?

And no, I will not PM you. What is the point of a discussion forum if people have to skulk around to explain away their utterances?

Why not explain to everyone with whom you share this space what you meant when you said you "would have more sympathy for Monia" once Arar is cleared?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 January 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is an example of a thread that should've been closed after one post.*

*I'm not complaining about moderation, nor volunteering to moderate. This thread just bugs me, seeing as it's only purpose was to spread poisonous misjudgements about the NDP. A more proper response to Morty Hines' masturbation would be a rousing chorus of 'STFU!'.

Oh, Phonicidal, that gives me an idea. The next time you want to spread lies about Maher Arar, I will invite you to 'STFU'. It's a promise (if I'm online).


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 05 January 2005 11:18 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
Oh, Phonicidal, that gives me an idea. The next time you want to spread lies about Maher Arar,
I didn't spread any lie about him. You just spread a lie about me. So, do I get to tell you to STFU, now?

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 January 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do it by PM.

So?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 January 2005 08:57 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you didn't claim that Maher Arar's name could be cleared by the inquiry? (why oh why am I doing this?)
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 January 2005 09:05 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your second question is a good one, Briguy. Why do we waste time arguing with a right-winger who thinks racial profiling of Muslims is okay, and that therefore it's okay to consider this particular Muslim guilty until proven innocent?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 January 2005 02:08 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come back, Phonicidal, don't hide. Be a sport.

What did you mean when you said you "would have more sympathy for Monia" once Arar is cleared?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 07 January 2005 02:52 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
...a right-winger who thinks racial profiling of Muslims is okay, and that therefore it's okay to consider this particular Muslim guilty until proven innocent?
That's not what I believe, and you know it. And, just because I share some beliefs with those to the right of the average babbler, that does not make me a "right-winger" (unless we're talking hockey. Then you'd be right...errr...correct).

From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 January 2005 06:37 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
No, you are a racist; a racist pig, in fact. You posted substantially at Little Green Footballs and you participated in an action sponsored by Protest Warriors, a 'roid ragin', anti-feminist, anti-humanist collection of stupid little boys who think that they can punch their way into respectful political discourse.

I find you sickening, and I hate Babble for letting a racist cock-sucker such as yourself post here.

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 07 January 2005 11:34 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland, people are allowed to speak their (small, closed, ignorant) minds here unless they've broken the rules, Phonicidal has been warned, however if you think Phoni has broken the rules let the moderator know.

Degrading the level of debate to name calling and anger only plays into Phoni's hand and does nothing for US.

My suggestion is to read Phoni's posts looking for a break in the rules, if not do not respond to them and engage the rest of us in a legitimate debate.

As for Phoni

quote:
I didn't spread any lie about him.

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
A lie is "something that misleads or deceives"

Your statements

quote:
unless Maher Arar is ultimately cleared

He hasn't been cleared


Both mislead us into beleiving he was CHARGED with something, which he was not. Therefore, you are a liar.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 07 January 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you using cocksucker as an epithet?
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 07 January 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Probably because he is a homophobe.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 January 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Try again. Hinterland may be many things, but a homophobe ain't one of 'em.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 07 January 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
Degrading the level of debate to name calling and anger only plays into Phoni's hand and does nothing for US....

Both mislead us into beleiving he was CHARGED with something, which he was not. Therefore, you are a liar.


Hmmm. I'm not sure how you reconcile rejecting "name calling in anger" and calling me a "liar." I certainly did not mislead anyone. I give much more credit to the average babbler for that. And, unless you can establish that I have lied, you probably ought not say as much.

PS: This thread is still not back on topic and is well over 100 posts.

PPS: Why Hinterland has not been booted is beyond me.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pellaken1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7028

posted 07 January 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for Pellaken1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the NDP has no minorities. while I dont blame them, its hard to do that with 19 mp's, I wouldent say judy w-l is ethnic.

I am half italian, but was told that I dont qualify as ethnic under the NDP's internal laws because Italy is in europe.


From: Gritland | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 January 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't doubt that we could have more ethnic candidates in the Halifax area. There are large populations of black, Greek, and Lebanese people here, with smaller populations of Chinese, Korean, Japanese (as well as many other groups I'm forgetting). How can we help ethnic minorities to seek and win local candidacy races? Absent a policy of parachuting ethnic candidates into no-contest ridings (which the NDP should not adopt, IMO), this really is the key in increasing the ethnic makeup of a political party.*

*This is one example of how to start a discussion on ethnic diversity in political parties. No accusatory tone, no hidden desire to smear a whole party unfoundedly, no CPC plant starting the thread.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 07 January 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Jesus.

I have been on boards of publications sued for defamation, I have been involved in determining whether someone should sue for libel, and I am related to lawyers who have been involved in defamation suits (on both sides of the issue and who have always won their cases). So I have had to be relatively familiar with the law of defamation (under which libel falls).

Here goes:

Over the years, courts have developed a few definitions of what is defamatory. A defamatory statement (libel) tends to discredit a person "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally" (Sim v. Stretch 1936, key House of Lords case cited as precedent). It may also expose someone to hatred, contempt, ridicule or injure his reputation in a trade or profession (Thomas v. CBC 1981)

Courts have found that a statement may be defamatory but may not be actionable in court(successful). A statement may be proven true (an absolute defense) or privilege may apply (for example, journalists have an absolute right to reproduce libellous comments made in Parliament)

It is important understand how the law examines questions of libel.

1) is there a defamatory statement to begin with? It is not good enough that a plaintiff feels words are objectionable. Courts will look at the plain meaning of the words as in the dictionary or as commonly understood. "You're a conservative bastard" won't cut it. Insults may on their own not be defamatory, in addition they have to lower an individual’s reputation, do damage to it. If not clearly defamatory, is there innuendo? What is the context? Though indnvidual words may be defamatory, the entire context of the statement (or posting or newspaper article) will be examined (Gouzenko v. Harris 1976 – Soviet defector lost a libel case even though the journalist called him a ‘traitor’ and ‘defector’ which was accurate in the overall context)

What defences apply? Here on this thread, we are not talking of truth or the defence of absolute privilege (e.g. repeating what is said in government proceedings)

Here we would be talking of the defence of "fair comment" by Phonocidal.

Elements of the defense are that the comment must be on a matter of public interest (makes sense), it must be an honest expression of the author’s opinion (I assume it is), the comment must be based on known facts (Arar has said he wants the inquiry to clear his name), there is no actual malice underlying the comment (Phonodical has stated he does not consider Arar "guilty" of any crime).

Key factor: It must be clear to the reader or listener that the statement is simply an opinion, yet it is not even necessary for the opinion to be one everyone would hold. Courts have held that it does not even have to be considered fair as most people understand that word or be considered a "reasonable" perspective (VanderZalm v. Times Publishers 1980 – a political cartoon showing the former BC premier pulling the wings off a fly in apparent glee was fair comment because the author had an honest belief in the content and it was not required that the belief be reasonable). The test for the fair comment defense is always whether the author honestly believes the opinion and whether the opinion is one that can be drawn from known facts.

A comment accusing an individual of corrupt, illegal or morally reprehensible conduct has been ruled defamatory and beyond the limits of fair comment when there has been no specific evidence supporting the accusation (in that case, it does not matter that the commentator believed what he was saying or writing).

So let's all hold onto our horses before handing out uninformed legal interpretations.

Call Phonocidal anything you want. But libellous? Not by a country mile. He never accused Arar of anything.

Just because some people don't like him is no excuse for people to lose their senses and start accusing Phonocidal of breaking the law.

Everyone take a fucking Valium.

P.S. I doubt Arar has the time or interest to hang around Babble searching for his name. He ain't gonna sue. He would have no grounds for doing so. If you go through the caselaw, you find that the comments that form the basis for the suits are usually quite extreme and explicit. "I hope he clears his name" and "I assume he is innocent" kind of pale in comparison to what the courts consider defamation.

If you don't like Phonocidal, ban him for something he did, not on some trumped up ridiculous allegation.

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 07 January 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
I would just like to return to the original topic and ask, what would some more appropriate or satisfactory composition be for the Federal NDP Caucus, given a total of just 19 members.

What would be an appropriate number of women? Of Aboriginals? Of Visible Minorities, of Persons with Disabilities, of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgenedered Persons? Do youth and recent white immigrants from Europe count among the groups requiring some consideration? Are there considerations around religion, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and others?

At the risk of being accused of trolling or just plain insensitivity, what is the appropriate percentage of white men? Or if you want to be more strict of straight white men?

The usual approach taken in employment equity for industry is to have a work force whose percentages of workers in variouis categories are roughly similar to the percentages found in the overall Census labour force data for the relevant job market region, usually a metropolitan region. And in the case of employment equity legislation, the considerations are restricted to women, Aboriginals and Visible Minorites and Disabled Persons, but in Canadian politics, at least in Federal Cabinet formation, the considerations have always reached much further afield to include factors such as religion and ethnic groups of all kinds, not just white and non-white.

So that's why I am asking. Is there a general solution here which would allow us to put forward some benchmarks that we would want a twenty, or thirty, or forty person federal or provincial NDP caucus to meet? If I am not mistaken, there was a similar thread a few weeks ago concerning the Alberta provincial NDP Caucus.

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: Budd Campbell ]


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 07 January 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I can only talk from the pespective of a voter in one riding.

I only get to vote for one candidate and usually have no clue who the candidates are on the other side of the country. So from the point of the voter, we can't control the composition of the caucus because no one can guarantee who is going to win in any particular riding.

Even if you recruit candidates considered more diverse, you can't tell in advance if they'll be elected.

Of course, if parties put more effort into recruiting more women and more ethnic candidates, that increases the chances of electing a more diverse caucus but the analogy to employment equity stops there because in hiring, decisions can be made as to who exactly is offered a job. In elections, no one can determine who gets elected.

And then there is the whole issue of local nomination races - is it good for a national office to impose candidates like the Liberals do to help women or minority candidates or are parties supposed to be grassroots democratic organizations and riding associations are supposed to get to pick who they want to run as their representative?

A party could impose a list of candidates on local ridings to ensure more diversity but then why would anyone want to join and pay money to a group that doesnt think people should have a voice in making important local decisions?

Perhaps changing the electoral system to some form of proportional representation would allow for balanced lists of candidates but then again, local associations would lose one of their major roles as they would lose the right to nominate their candidate.

I don't have a solution. But I don't blame the NDP - the party did not do anything incorrect. It is Canadians who vote and choose their MPs and the results are based on local races and trends. As usual in the first past the post system.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  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