Not to be outdone, May insisted the Green Party position was for a total ban, the same as the Liberals.

When it was pointed out to her that the "Vision Green" platform on her party's website called for a ban on semi-automatic weapons "in urban areas", May expressed shock, and insisted the website was wrong. When she checked the website, she said:

quote:

---

"Oh, it does say in urban centres. I don't know why it says that," she said. "It's a mistake."

"I don't know how it happened but it's being removed immediately. I'm so glad you spotted that," she said, before turning to her staff. "This is important guys, it's got to be done right away."

May said that while policies are voted on by the party's membership, the Vision Green election platform was written by the "shadow cabinet" and, "I'm the primary author." But something went amiss in the editing, she said.

The Vision Green document was revised for by-elections that were never called because the Oct. 14 election was triggered.

It had been on the website for at least several days.

At least one shadow minister, Michael Oddy, was convinced the partial ban was indeed party policy.

"I feel that we need to have tight controls on guns and I would support what the Liberals recently said about banning all semi-automatic weapons in the country," he told the Star prior to May's comments.

He explained the Green's acceptance of semi-automatic weapons in rural areas as part of the "push and pull between factions" that occurs at party conventions. The 2006 election platform did not address the issue of semi-automatic weapons.

In any event, the Green website was revised by day's end. - Star

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Not to be outdone, May insisted the Green Party position was for a total ban, the same as the Liberals.

---

They went on in the article to quote Michael Oddy (see above) who made it clear that the "urban areas" ban was a deliberate compromise position the party had come to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't think the Star bought it at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
It must be nice to just be able to create policy when you need to. Makes it so much easier to not have to have anything yucky like principles or anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No doubt! Just make it up on the fly, as the Green Party is not a real one anyway, and as May well knows, and in fact exhibits, and is just a creation to split votes.

---

Interestingly, last night on the Agenda, May slipped slightly and said "I" and quickly changed to "the Green Party", in some green policy she was discussing. It revealed to me that this slight "Freudian slip" showed that she sees herself as the Green Party, without her troop of merrymakers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

Interestingly, last night on the Agenda, May slipped slightly and said "I" and quickly changed to "the Green Party", in some green policy she was discussing. It revealed to me that this slight "Freudian slip" showed that she sees herself as the Green Party, without her troop of merrymakers.

So she makes up Green policy on the fly because she is the Green Party, and the merry troops go along, because organizationally she is the show.

---

In the same TVO interview you're referring to, I saw Elizabeth May say that they were the only party that was anti-nuclear (although she noted that the NDP "claimed" they were too). But that would be news to many of the candidates her party has nominated (notably in Bruce Grey - Owen Sound, but others as well).

I too am looking forward to the grilling May will get at the debate, also puts a stop to her only issue over the last 2 years, being that she is aloud into the debates. It is noteworthy that she always attacks the NDP. Make what you will but it does not match her rhetoric of anything to stop harper. If that was true she would save her invective for the reformatories instaed of us.

Cross post with OldGoat

[ 14 September 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

[ 14 September 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

This is from TVO Agenda's Blog:

quote:

---

Elizabeth May responded to accusations that she called Canadians stupid on her blog on the Green Party web page.

In the course of her rebuttal, she made the following statement:

“I reviewed all this on TVO with Steve Paikan [sic] more recently and he confirmed that no one in the room thought I had said Canadians are stupid.”

TVO has weighed in:

In a letter to the Green Party, TVO's director of corporate communications wrote:

For the record, I would like to clarify that at no point during his September 12th interview with Elizabeth May did Steve Paikin express such a personal opinion.

We feel this use of Mr. Paikin’s name – and by extension, that of TVO’s - is inappropriate. We ask that the above mentioned blog posting be corrected, along with any other Green Party of Canada postings or communications of a similar nature.

---

Agenda Blogs

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

When I was getting a jump on what the GP talking points were going to be tonight here this below, from the beginninhg of the rebuttal you link to, just made me roar:

quote:

---

I have been verbally beat up all over the media and Canada this week over allegations that I said...that Canadians are stupid. I am stunned that this story could have taken off so much that I barely get to discuss Green Party policies with a journalist or television host without being grilled about the remarks I made

---

Now we need to find out if Mayor Miller did endorse her and the GP.

quote:

---

In a radio interview today, Toronto mayor David Miller said the Green Party had the best plan for cities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
E May doing some more making it up as she goes.

This is from TVO Agenda's Blog:

---

First of all, did Emay say the conversation in question took place on September 12?

Second, the denial is very specific to a September 12 interview. It does not rule out that Paikin might have said some such thing outside of the interview itself, when the tape was not rolling and the conversation was not on the air, or on another occasion entirely. If Emay were saying that Paikin's statement came during the broadcast, there would be a tape available to back that up. She never offered a tape or referred to a tape, so it is unlikely that the statement was recorded or broadcast.

Third, it refers to what May says Paikin confirmed as a "personal opinion". It wasn't a matter of opinion at all, but a matter of fact as to whether anyone in the room thought Emay had said Canadians are stupid.

Fourth, the letter suggests that the "use" of Paikin's name is "inappropriate", without explaining why. If Paikin really did say what Emay says he did, then there is nothing inappropriate about saying so. If the only reason for saying it is inappropriate is that Paikin never in fact made the statement, then this is simply another repetition of the denial, using other words, and adds nothing to the letter.

Fifth, the letter never says that Paikin himself denies making the statement. Unless he was being closely followed about by the anonymous "director of corporate communications" 24/7 nobody but Paikin himself could make such a denial with any authority.

What she's done, several times, is try and imply that she and Steve Paikin are in agreement about what she said or didn't say, or what the audience believed her to mean or didn't believe her to mean, and that is inappropriate for a politician. Politicians are supposed to understand that it's not the role of journalists to take sides in such an issue, and even if we sometimes believe that some of them do, for pete's sake Paikin is the last one to ever do that, and he is demeaned by any suggestion to the contrary.

The TVO intervention was entirely reasonably under the circumstances, given the number of times she repeated this assertion over the weekend (I think I saw it on Sunday Report too, or at least another weekend interview that she did).

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: ottawaobserver ]

quote:

---

First of all, did Emay say the conversation in question took place on September 12?

---

She did say "I reviewed all this on TVO with Steve Paikan..." That would mean on the program. And the interview was on the 12th.

If it happened off air then the normal thing is she would say that, not "we reviewed this on TVO.

NDP | NDP calls on Conservatives to address infrastructure deficit
... government to help Canada’s struggling cities. “While municipalities across Canada ... provinces and territories and help out cities and their ratepayers by investing in ... (FCM) at over $123 billion. Many cities are facing higher property taxes this ... each year but offered nothing new for cities. “On the one hand, we have the ...

NDP | Layton calls for surplus investment in communities
... infusion of cash for crumbling cities MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jack Layton says ... and Liberal neglect. “Modern cities like Montreal should never have to ... failure,” said Layton. “Our cities are the economic engine of Canada; we ... to rebuilding communities and cities in Canada.” “Harper promised a debate ... under control and finding the money cities need to thrive.”...

NDP | NDP blasts Harper for not supporting Toronto
... does nothing to address the needs of cities like Toronto. “It’s now clear the ... to ignore the critical needs of cities in Canada,” said Nash. “The NDP voted ... mini-budget that did nothing for cities while the Liberals decided it was best ... his misguided approach to supporting cities and for Mr. Dion to stop helping him ignore Canadian cities’ needs. Just yesterday, Harper met ... to call for investment in Canadian cities’ infrastructure once it became clear ...

. NDP | Layton calls for investment in cities to close prosperity gap for homeowners
Layton calls for investment in cities to close prosperity gap for homeowners ... a real plan to invest in Canadian cities. The need for such a plan is urgent as ... to close the prosperity gap facing our cities but chose not to. The situation facing our cities today is urgent,” said Layton. ... billion in corporate tax cuts but our cities scramble. The NDP would have taken a ...

NDP urges government to act on transit strategy
... such a strategy in consultation with cities and communities. “If this government ... in urban transportation,” said Nash. “Cities are the engine of the Canadian economy ...

NDP | Layton Outlines Commitment To Transit
... Backgrounder: A Commitment To Cities Speaking in Toronto with ...

The GP might as well have just cut and pasted our policies on cities on to their pages.

The most she could possibly say was that when she said that, Paikin did not disagree with her. In Emays mind that becomes "he confirmed that no one in the room thought I had said Canadians are stupid.”

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

The GP might as well have just cut and pasted our policies on cities on to their pages.

---

In this case we have two parties with similar policies.

but more importantly is that May seems to have decided to throw PR under the bus - it isn't anywhere in the platform that was released today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daveNewDem:
May seems to have decided to throw PR under the bus - it isn't anywhere in the platform that was released today.

also notable in its absence? no mention of affordable housing? david miller might like to re-think his meme that greens are good for cities given that affordable housing is a pretty big chunk of the city budget and Toronto has been crying destitute on this file since paul martin killed federal spending for affordable housing when he was finance minister

---

Wonderful at least now we will not have the GP supporters here yelling about how they are the only ones for PR, and how bad the NDP are for not supporting the GP in this endeavour, as it seems now only the NDP is for PR!

At least in the Ontario referendum the Green Party made a concerted effort to support it on the ground. And while I still don't vote for them, I at least gained some respect for them. The ONDP could only say that the referendum was doomed to fail from the start (and therefore no effort was required although there were some efforts at the riding level). In my view, one of the considerations for that position was to prevent the Green Party from gaining a foothold in the Ontario Legislature.

[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
If the NDP were the champions of electoral reform, we would already have proportional representation in BC, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

At least in the Ontario referendum the Green Party made a concerted effort to support it on the ground. And while I still don't vote for them, I at least gained some respect for them. The ONDP could only say that the referendum was doomed to fail from the start (and therefore no effort was required although there were some efforts at the riding level). In my view, one of the considerations for that position was to prevent the Green Party from gaining a foothold in the Ontario Legislature.

[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

---

So lets talk about this campaign. The New Democrats aren't afraid to talk about it. Is this part of the "leaders courtesy" so that Dion doesn't have to be put on the spot by the Greens in the debate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Yeah ... sure ... so why don't we have proportional representation in BC, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

---

quote:

---

trying to leverage support for reform if there's a minority government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So do you not understand the political system? This is a federal election and the federal and provincial parties do not have exactly the same policies or priorities. That goes for all parties as the example above for the BC Greens shows.

---

quote:

---

But now they are apparently going to ignore it during this election campaign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Are you really expecting intelectual honesty from that poster?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
Remind, you might want to check the Green Party platform again and back off this allegation and all of the conclusions you've already reached. Electoral reform is front and centre in their platform. [/URL]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
As I explained to you in the other thread, Vision Green is NOT the election campaign platform, that was released today where not a word of PR was mentioned, say nothing of its being front and centre. It is simply not there nor does the platform refer to Vision Green.

here is the link to the campaign platform that was just released today sans PR. And I have saved the pdf to my comp and have taken screen shots too, just in case there is an addition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So much for being the party to erase the democratic deficit. But then EMay has been a backroom Ottawa operative for many decades. FPTP might result in her liberals not getting elected and then how would she get into the Senate?

---