Brigette DePape for prime minister (3)

94 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Brigette DePape for prime minister (3)

It's not over. It has just begun.

Unionist

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-stop-harper-senate-page-... Brigette DePape joins demonstrators to mark G20 anniversary[/url]

Brigette wrote:
"Real power is in the streets. Real power is not in Parliament."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Power to the people! Cool

I think street demos are going to be the way to go for the next four years, coupled with a strong NDP opposition in Parliament. Would be nice to hear Layton say something nice about DePape, though.

I wonder what the pushback will be from the Cons to massive street protests, if it comes to that?

WillC

.

Red Tory Tea Girl

Could've done without the porche ad, but I'll live.

 

I agree that real power is in the streets and violating the supremacy of parliamentary democracy isn't very legitimate. Hoping to stop Harper when we can plausibly do so instead of declaring intentions and imperiliing the neutrality of the crown by holding up a sign during Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne.

 

Don't put the queen in this position. She's supposed to magnify the people's will, not adjudicate on it.

Uncle John

Some of us question the legitimacy of the 'supremacy of parliamentary democracy' when it is gerrymandered and rigged against the people, giving absolute, unchecked power to one person who the vast majority did not vote for.

And don't get me started on the monarchy, which is a symbol of arbitrary power, and power of the few over the many. The Monarchy should have been abolished a long time ago. That you would still use the Monarchy to make some kind of political case in 2011 shows this.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

I agree that real power is in the streets and violating the supremacy of parliamentary democracy isn't very legitimate.

Could you explain since this seems like a contradictory statement. If the parliament is the supreme democracy then what role is there for non parliamentary activity.  If it opposes the supreme power then where could it get its legitimacy from?  If it has no legitimacy then how can it be the real power.

I think the power is in the people not an archaic institution founded by the British aristocracy to ensure that the populace would always be subjugated to the elites desires.  Protesting against the use of the illegitimate power being wielded in Ottawa on behalf of our monied elite is the legitimate activity. IMO

Uncle John

People who try to equate 'Parliament' with 'Democracy' are going to HAVE to be contradictory.

janfromthebruce

well it would be nice if Brigette also acknowledged that both powers within and without are necessary. That's where I find her stance naive.

 

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-stop-harper-senate-page-... Brigette DePape joins demonstrators to mark G20 anniversary[/url]

Brigette wrote:
"Real power is in the streets. Real power is not in Parliament."

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

well it would be nice if Brigette also acknowledged that both powers within and without are necessary. That's where I find her stance naive.

If I told you that nothing positive can be achieved within the House of Commons for the next four years, would you call me naïve? As opposed to those who believe the "debates" and committee sessions will change someone's mind?

I think Brigette has figured out that the Parliamentary emperor is naked. That's not naïveté. That's the first step to mature thought and action.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I see a general strike in our future.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Because the Cons have a majority, I don't see any way that the NDP by themselves can prevent the government from, for example, purchasing F35 fighter bombers or building megaprisons - which, it could be argued, the majority of the population would oppose. Consequently, the only alternative I see is people out in the streets, which raises the question: would they have the support of the NDP in opposing the Harper agenda? We already heard what Layton thinks of DePape's actions.

ETA: I guess what I am asking is: would the NDP, knowing the Conservatives are in a majority government,  try to do more than just debate really offensive Conservative legislation and policies that they know they can not defeat in the House?  Would the NDP support initiatives to protest on the Hill and elsewhere by activist groups trying to "Stop Harper"?   Because he has a majority, the only thing left that can stop Harper - on any issue - is public pressure, and lots of it.

Unionist

I think you're asking the right questions, Boom Boom. But even if the NDP doesn't step up, they're not the fulcrum of change in our society. People who are oppressed and marginalized will continue to get organized wherever they are. If they enjoy support from some electoral organization or another, so much the better.

 

remind remind's picture

Boom Boom wrote:
...what I am asking is: would the NDP, knowing the Conservatives are in a majority government,  try to do more than just debate really offensive Conservative legislation and policies that they know they can not defeat in the House? 

Is what you mean by "more" what you are asking in your 2nd question, as below? If not what do you mean by more?

Quote:
 Would the NDP support initiatives to protest on the Hill and elsewhere by activist groups trying to "Stop Harper"?   Because he has a majority, the only thing left that can stop Harper - on any issue - is public pressure, and lots of it.

What would lead you to believe NDPers would not? Let me tell you out here in BC, no matter what flavour the government was, NDPers took to the protest lines, marches, logging blocks. Yes even when there was NDP governments in power.

Because "the NDP" is actually the individual members of the NDP, not some monolith 'NDP'. The NDP in BC found out how quickly they get no where when they alienate the base voters.

Moreover, why in hell would the NDP, meaning the caucus and executive not support initiatives by activist groups, who will try to stop Harper's government? They certainly did when the Liberals were in power and doing the same damn things that Harper is going.

And btw the last bolded sentence actually does not make sense when taken in context with the question before it.

THE NDP  MP's are not 'public pressure' in the public sphere, they are the elected members of a political party in the HoC which is the offical opposition. "The public' is the actual embodiement of "public pressure' is it not?

 

janfromthebruce

I agree with Remind. Of course they would oppose the Harper agenda, and this included those elected in the House and NDP members across Canada. And I think pressure both inside the house and outside are necessary.

I always found that if is pushing from outside a system, but there is nobody "inside" who is willing/wanting to make/to advocate those "pushed" changes, well no matter how strong the push is outside, is doesn't matter. It requires a symbiotic relationship.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:
I think you're asking the right questions, Boom Boom. But even if the NDP doesn't step up, they're not the fulcrum of change in our society. People who are oppressed and marginalized will continue to get organized wherever they are. If they enjoy support from some electoral organization or another, so much the better.

But I'm focusing more specifically on the Harper agenda that the population clearly does not want implemented - for example, the F35s and the megaprisons. If the NDP anre hamstrung because the Cons have a majority, are the NDP prepared to take further action - working with others organising mass demonstrations, for example? Civil disobedience?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

I always found that if is pushing from outside a system, but there is nobody "inside" who is willing/wanting to make/to advocate those "pushed" changes, well no matter how strong the push is outside, is doesn't matter. It requires a symbiotic relationship.

I agree that until we get millions in the streets that a parliamentary presence is required to bring about change. I also think that the peopl ein the streets will have both politicians of various stripes trying to get in front of that parade so the allies in the House will appear as needed.  

I guess all I have to say about the federal NDP is Libya, Syria and Israel.  

Where are the voices that will speak the truth on foreign affairs. Why is the NDP backing the murder of civilians in Tripoli and engaging in war talk about Syria.  Who is making those decisions?  Two thirds of the people would have agreed with a non-intervention stance on Libya but they were cowards and went with intervention.  Two thirds of Canadians support intervention in labour disputes but they rightly opposed intervention in collective bargaining. 

What criteria is being used in this stupid real-politic game where they don't choose on the basis of polls or principle?  Cult of the leader is all it looks like.  What Jack and his cadre say is NDP policy is NDP policy. 

All Hail the Omnipotent Leader.  Onward to socialism on the national scene. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Brian Topp is on babble, and he's the new National President of the NDP, so why not direct these questions to him, NS?

I guess some questions I'd like answered by Brian are:

 - are the NDP actually moving right to centre, as has been suggested in some of these threads? If so, why?

 - knowing Harper has a majority, and thus the Cons can get their way on every piece of obnoxious legislation they chose to bring forward, would the NDP be prepared to work with outside organizations to stage mass protest demonstrations and perhaps even civil disobedience in an effort to gain public pressure and support to Stop Harper?

6079_Smith_W

You'd think we had never had a majority government in this country before, given the talk that it somehow makes parliament irrelevant.

While I believe the NDP has taken part in protests (what was the filibuster, after all?) I would ask what it means if they are not prepared to go outside the law and get directly involved  in civil disobedience?  I think would be a grave and foolish error, and  I doubt the party as a whole would even seriously consider it given their committment as members of parliament.

Would that make them part of the problem?

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, the filibuster was a nice debate. But, be honest - it did not force the Cons to change anything. I'm asking if the NDP are prepared to actually take action involving public protest, dissent, and even civil disobedience outside of Parliament that can actually Stop Harper on really obnoxious legislation he may bring forward, or for example purchase F35s, or start building megaprisons.

6079_Smith_W

@ Boom Boom

Yes, I understand. And I believe the party has been supportive of protests and actions outside the house..  

I am just asking what it would mean to you if they do not as a party decide to engage in acts that are outside the law?

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am just asking what it would mean to you if they do not as a party decide to engage in acts that are outside the law?

What would it mean to you if they chose to engage in civil disobedience?  What if they engaged in a criminal contempt of court?  

I have liked it when my NDP MP did it.  He got re-elected either despite of or maybe because of being arrested in BC and shot at in Quebec.  I think the young NDP MP's might just inspire some apolitical youth if they followed in that tradition within the party.

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0307144/clayoquot.shtml

6079_Smith_W

@ NS

I disagree with it, whether one supports the principle or not. 

It gets back to the question of whether people  who hold public office like MPs or judges can disregard the law which the office they hold is based on. 

Of course politcians and parties support certain issues, and I think it is even important for them to speak out in support of issues where people engage in civil disobedience. But I still think there is a line, especially when you consider that an elected official has to represent all constituents, not just those who voted for him or her. 

For me that line (at least in any circumstances in our recent history) is the rule of law and the rules of parliament. It doesn't matter to me that the other side may have broken those rules.

To break them causes more damage than good, IMO, because it removes any moral authority to call others on breaking the law.

Besides, I thought the prevailing wisdom here is that political and social change is not driven by the parties, but by the people. Why the sudden need to have them leading a movement rather than listening to what we have to say?

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, I understand. And I believe the party has been supportive of protests and actions outside the house..  

I am just asking what it would mean to you if they do not as a party decide to engage in acts that are outside the law?

The MP who most inspired me was Dan/Don Heap in Toronto - he was firmly antiwar (and still is) and chained himself - with another protestor - to the gates of a war statue in Toronto as a protest. It made the front page of our national Anglican newspaper and maybe the Star as well.

I realize this kind of protest is not for everyone, but we already know the NDP are the best debaters in the House - but with Harper's majority, if they actually want to stop the most odious things he has planned, then something more than debate is called for, and I am suggesting getting really activist is the way to go. Forget about moving right to centre - get out there and organise and protest and raise a little hell! Get Canadians mobilized and stand up to Harper, and force him to back down. Having the status of Official Opposition means they willl get listened to.  If they chose to ignore the opportunity, well, that would be a shame. They could have made a difference.

6079_Smith_W

@ Boom Boom

Again, I agree with you completely that they should be supportive and active on those issues. but I think that engaging directly in acts like that can potentially do more damage than good - damage to a politician's respect for order, and damage to his or her ability fo act in good faith. Same goes for judges, cops, the media, and any other where we expect at least the pretense of impartiality, even if we know it is ignored in practice.

I am outraged when I see Harper acting in contempt of parliament, ignoring clear rulings, and engaging in anti-democratic actions. How can I turn around and say it is okay when tactics like that are used by politicians I support?

The bottom line for me is  I don't think it is necessary in order to engage effectively on those issues.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think that engaging directly in acts like that can potentially do more damage than good - damage to a politician's respect for order, and damage to his or her ability fo act in good faith. Same goes for judges, cops, the media, and any other where we expect at least the pretense of impartiality, even if we know it is ignored in practice.

And furthermore  I don't think it is necessary.

Judges and cops are Officers of the Court and therefore are in a different category than others under our system of law.  The media is supposed to be impartial?  If that is the case then we have always had a dysfunctional media given its biases, so does that make them irrelevant? Its not like people talk about the NP's or G&M's lack of bias.  In a perfect world the media would not be biased unfortunately we live in Canada.  

A politician is elected to speak about politics and his/her future employment by the people is always at stake.  I will work for a Siksay or a Robinson but never a Dewar or a Martin.  The more the NDP becomes merely a party with status quo apologists the less relevant it becomes to CHANGE.  To me societal change is the end goal of politics not electoral success.  Electoral success is one way to make societal change but not if you have to become part of the status quo to get elected. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I just see a tremendous opportunity for the NDP to make a name for itself as the party that gets things done by being extremely activist despite working against a Harper majority, and this would reflect very positively on them in 2015. There may never again be such a great opportunity for the NDP to seize the moment. Just debating in the House against Harper and his majority is not going to change a single damn thing - unless someone can prove to me otherwise.

Aristotleded24

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Where are the voices that will speak the truth on foreign affairs. Why is the NDP backing the murder of civilians in Tripoli and engaging in war talk about Syria.  Who is making those decisions?  Two thirds of the people would have agreed with a non-intervention stance on Libya but they were cowards and went with intervention.  Two thirds of Canadians support intervention in labour disputes but they rightly opposed intervention in collective bargaining.

Not even the general Canadian vote, let's look at the military specifically. Alexa McDonnough was a saunch advocate for peace, and easily won her Halifax seat, which has a heavy military presense. And the NDP's position on Afghanistan was well known going into the election, and they picked up seats in military cities like Esquimalt, Dartmouth, areas of Quebec that have military bases, and almost won in Moose Jaw. So clearly the idea that the military vote=bomb them all has no foundation. Not to mention several babblers with military experience who have spoken against military adventurism generally and Harper's foreign policy direction specifically.

6079_Smith_W

@ NS

It has nothing to do with being part of the status quo, or with not being supportive or even taking action on those issues.

It has to do with adhering to professional standards that all of us who have work are expected to observe in one form or another. If I see a politician, or someone in the media displaying an unfair bias, or acting outside the constraints of that job  it doesn't matter what side that bias is on. I consider it a breach of standards. 

If you do not consider that an important distinction (and I am not saying that you do) fine. But I do.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It has to do with adhering to professional standards that all of us who have work are expected to observe in one form or another. If I see a politician, or someone in the media displaying an unfair bias, or acting outside the constraints of that job  it doesn't matter what side that bias is on. I consider it a breach of standards. 

The NDP convention was an eye-opener for me. I'm going to try and get a copy of their policy book. They stand for virtually the opposite of many of the things the Conservatives stand for, and therefore, to be true to their beliefs and to effectively block Harper from implementing things the NDP (and probably the majority of Canadians) stand against, what else can the NDP do but encourage popular dissent, and, if necessary, civil disobedience? I suspect there may be NDP members of the party who expect the NDP to be extremely activist and to actually do something that effectively blocks Harper from implementing the most odious of his agenda. Personally, I think the NDP have an opportunity here to get out and organise the public against Harper and take it to the streets. As their years in Official Opposition go by, I think the progressive part of the electorate will get upset if the NDP does nothing but debate the issues in the House.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

What I am saying is that civil disobedience can be the highest standard for a politician. A politician who is not willing to put their career on the line for any issue means their main issue is getting themselves elected. The people of my riding did not agree with your view that a politicians duty is to follow unjust laws no matter what.  They like most people in BC praised all the almost 900 people willing to stand up and say to the courts that they would not comply with an unjust law even if it was only treees at stake.

I don't know what you mean by," all of us that have work."  I know you would not be insulting me obliquely so please explain what the relevance to being employed, unemployed or retired has to do with what is a proper standard. 

As for the media I would love to see your list of unbiased media personalities.  I am sure it is a very, very small list either that or we don't share the same definition of bias.

Unionist

I can't believe we still have babblers arguing about whether DePape's "Stop Harper" moment of silence was or was not a disgraceful breach of parliamentary niceties. 6079 has made his point clear - ad nauseam - and I strongly urge other babblers to ignore that debate and get on to discussing DePape's challenge to all Canadians - to multiply actions of all kinds in order to defeat this dangerous agenda. And you don't have to restrict yourselves either to what the NDP should be doing or not doing. As I mentioned, they are not the fulcrum of change in our society. We are.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'll take U's advice and shut up about the NDP - for now. Laughing

In my early years I joined organizations I thought were supportive of causes I believed in - such as against the Viet Nam War, for better food distribution, against poverty, and for better low-income housing. Joining the groups of your choice and getting involved and pushing for action is one way to go.

ps: Angela Davis was on Strom's show last night, and remains strongly activist into her senior years. Good role model, I think.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Here is good summary of some of the legal issues you seem to be touching on 6079.  Your point of view is not shared by most legal thinkers.  Blind adherence to law for the sake of societal peace is IMO a recipe for tyranny.  I formed that opinion by reading a lot of Dworkin and his critics.  

In the context of politicians they can either accept that a law is just and follow it or they should not follow it if they determine a law is unjust.  As lawmakers they have a duty to speak to the foundation of laws. If they believe that the government is stripping people of rights then I would say they should actively engage in civil disobedience.  If the government is clear cutting unceded native land then wringing ones hands and waiting until the the next election only leaves as stump farm not a forest.  I like to see both the forest and the trees.

Quote:

Utilitarians observe that disobedience and obedience may both be harmful. The slippery slope objection falsely assumes that the former sort of harm always outweighs the latter. In the case of an iniquitous law, the harm of disobedience can be the lesser evil. This utilitarian reply is sometimes found to coexist with a complementary deontological reply, for example in Thoreau: one simply must not lend one's weight to an unjust cause.

Ronald Dworkin replies, in effect, that the descriptive version of the argument is false and the normative version irrelevant. There is no evidence that civil disobedience, even when tolerated by legal officials, leads to an increase in lawlessness. Moreover, rights trump utility. Since (for Dworkin) there is a strong right to disobey certain kinds of unjust laws, and since the slippery slope argument points only to the disutility of disobedience, this is a case of a right in conflict with utility; hence the right to disobey must prevail.

The normative version of the slippery slope argument has little force if the criteria used by activists permit some but not all disobedience. In Kant's language again, universalizability fails if the maxim of the action is "disobey a law whenever you disapprove of it," but it can succeed if instead the maxim is, "disobey when obedience would cause more harm than disobedience," or "disobey when a law is unjust in the following specific ways...." And it must be said, virtually all activists who practice civil disobedience follow criteria which endorse some, but not all, disobedience. King, for example, did not advocate indiscriminate disobedience; he advocated disobedience of unjust laws and obedience to the just. He articulated what he regarded as public, objective criteria which help us identify the unjust laws which may or must be disobeyed, and the just laws which must obeyed. Any attempt to articulate the distinction between the two sorts of law is in effect an attempt to show that the slide down the slope can be halted, or that the maxim to disobey can be universalized.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/civ-dis.htm

Caissa

Agreed. It seems strange that some are expecting a bourgeois parliamentary party to act as an extra-parliamentary revolutionary group.  The NDP has been around for 50 years. Are people so scared of the Harper majority that they are now asking the NDP to be something they are not?

remind remind's picture

It is not up to the NDP caucus to encourage popular dissent. It is up to the people to be dissenters. And it has been my experience that the popular dissenters usually invite the individual NDP MP's etc to attend.

Moreover, remaining true to NDP beliefs does not mean encouraging civil disobedience. In fact IMV, you are then putting the cart before the horse.

NDP MP's represent all their constituents not just the NDP voting ones. I certainly do not want my CON MP to be out rallying people to support those with fundamentalist religious beliefs etc. I have no issues with her attending events herself, but not her being a rally driver.

The NDP's opportunity here is to make sure they are a credible alternative government for 2015, and their encouraging riots and law breaking is not the way to do it.

Frankly,  I question the sincerity of those postulating such a thing as something that is necessary for being true to progressive beliefs. As I see it as trying to infer that the opposite of not inciting riots is their being against their principles and moving rightward.

Then to go on to infer that "progressives" should get angry if all the NDP do is debate in the House and not incite riots is even more questionable. Such a rhetorical device attempts to make it appear that we progressives are not actually progressive if we do not get angry at the NDP for not inciting riots and fulfilling their role as MP's to all. And I am not down with that portayal of what it is to be 'progressive' at all, as it is nonsense.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I found your use of the term "inciting riots" to be a deliberate provocation and escalation of the debate to a back biting contest.

It is a damn good thing Svend and Libby and others didn't have to rely on NDP'ers like you to get reelected after they have taken courageous stands including civil disobedience.  I don't just talk I have helped elect politicians because they would stand at Clayoquot Sound and in Quebec City.  

I agree that there seems to be little room in the current Neo-Democratic Party for that tradition which is precisely why it is irrelevant to my future political activity in your party.  Its your party so please stop whining you've won.

Unionist I agree that the point of DePape is precisely that at this moment the apolitical need to be awakened.  One more week and I am half way to a new phase of taking it to the streets.  Our society needs to be confronted with the truths and that will not happen unless the MSM cannot avoid the issues.  That requires tens of thousands in the streets on a consistent basis and hundreds of thousands on special occasions.  We had those kinds of numbers in the streets before the cold war ended.  In BC we had a one day protest on February 23, 2003 that had tens of thousands but then the crowds went back to work because everyone needs to pay the bills. A one day protest is not a strategy it is a feel good activity.

I think we need to send our young people to Spain for the summer.  A modern day Mackenzie Papineau Battalion.  The youth that come back from a summer on the front line of peaceful civil disobedience in places like Barcelona could provide the catalyst to awaken our apolitical young people.  A new democracy is again trying to arise in Spain.

Send a student to Spain for an education sounds like a great campaign idea.  Like the donations taken to get the fighters into Spain to fight in solidarity with the Spanish people in the 30's.  This time though it is not to bear arms but to join in peace and bear witness to the struggle of the people of Europe against the financial elite that wants to steal their futures and the future of their children too.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I agree that the party (NDP) needs to present itself as a government-in-waiting, but that does that mean they reduce themselves to useless debaters while Harper gets his way on the most odious of his agenda? If the population see the party (NDP) out there mobilizing dissent against the most unpopular of Harper's agenda, that would stand them in good stead, I think. If they blow this opportunity to Stop Harper, then they're effectively useless in my opinion. What if they remain docile in the face of Conservative atrocities, present theselves as the next government, and lose the election? Isn't that all for naught???

remind remind's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:
I found your use of the term "inciting riots" to be a deliberate provocation and escalation of the debate to a back biting contest.

You are correct I was being delibertely provocative with that word usage. Because that is the way that the NDP  encouraging civil disobedience would be spun in the MSM. It had nothing to do with "back biting".

Quote:
It is a damn good thing Svend and Libby and others didn't have to rely on NDP'ers like you to get reelected after they have taken courageous stands including civil disobedience.  

"NDPers like me" is actually a good example of back biting. However, I am going to overlook your attack. Even though above I noted I had no issue with the NDP MP's partaking in civil disobedience and you apparently chose to overlook that reality  in order to attack.

Quote:
I don't just talk I have helped elect politicians because they would stand at Clayoquot Sound and in Quebec City.  

Again a personal attack NS, and you are infering I am against the protests at Clayoquot  and others like it. Even though I was there and elsewhere and am /have been extremely supportive of Libby, Svend and Bill confronting the elite, and indeed even provincial NDP governments.

And BTW, I was responding to boom boom's post not yours, you posted in between.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

I can't believe we still have babblers arguing about whether DePape's "Stop Harper" moment of silence was or was not a disgraceful breach of parliamentary niceties. 6079 has made his point clear - ad nauseam - and I strongly urge other babblers to ignore that debate and get on to discussing DePape's challenge to all Canadians - to multiply actions of all kinds in order to defeat this dangerous agenda. And you don't have to restrict yourselves either to what the NDP should be doing or not doing. As I mentioned, they are not the fulcrum of change in our society. We are.

 

Actually the reason why I made the point is that I agree with you entirely that we are the fulcrum of change, not the politicians. We should not be expecting political parties to take the lead into the territory of street protests and challenges to - (edit) disobeying -  the law. 

Sorry if you disagree, but I didn't bring this one up. And if someone brings it up again, you may have to reach for the gravol. I don't see posting limits on most people's ideas here.

And @ NS. 

No, everything I say is not designed as a veiled insult against you. The fact remains  I don't have the right to throw someone out of my shop because I don't like his politics. Nor would it would have been appropriate to go over the line from fair questioning to a partisan reaction with someone I might be interviewing as a jopurnalist, no matter how objectionable that person's ideas might be.

I don't care how many might do it; it is misconduct. And it was just as wrong on the occasion when Terry Milewski did it as when Evan Solomon does it. 

But anyway, as Unionist suggests, carry on.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

remind wrote:

And BTW, I was responding to boom boom's post not yours, you posted in between.

And BTW this is an open forum where I get to speak any time I want about anyones post.  That is the way babble works. Here are some of your attacks that I didn't overlook but instead read them and then they formed the basis for my back biting comment. 

You question the sincerity of people making arguments similar to the ones I have made.  As for rhetorical devices I will admit you have a far better mastery than I.

Remind wrote:

Frankly,  I question the sincerity of those postulating such a thing as something that is necessary for being true to progressive beliefs. As I see it as trying to infer that the opposite of not inciting riots is their being against their principles and moving rightward.

Then to go on to infer that "progressives" should get angry if all the NDP do is debate in the House and not incite riots is even more questionable. Such a rhetorical device attempts to make it appear that we progressives are not actually progressive if we do not get angry at the NDP for not inciting riots and fulfilling their role as MP's to all. And I am not down with that portayal [sic] of what it is to be 'progressive' at all, as it is nonsense.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I trust Remind knows the difference between mass demonstrations which may or may not include civil disobedience, and an outright riot. Laughing

 

ETA: in 1968 I was taken away by police for participating in civil disobedience in front of the US Embassy in Ottawa in protest over the Viet Nam war. Was photographed, fingerprinted, never charged, and was released.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It's clear to me that neither the provincial nor federal governments give a sh*t about the Alberta tar sands and the damage that project is doing, so what else besides massive protest demonstrations and civil disobedience is going to change that situation for the better?

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

ETA: in 1968 I was taken away by police for participating in civil disobedience in front of the US Embassy in Ottawa in protest over the Viet Nam war. Was photographed, fingerprinted, never charged, and was released.

We were comrades-in-arms - at a distance. I wasn't fingerprinted though. I'll put up the bail when they come for you!

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I've been fingerprinted several times. That's why I wear gloves most of the time now. Just kidding! Laughing

 

ps: In 1968 I was a member of the League of Young Socialists in Ottawa, I left because I went to college hundreds of miles away.

Unionist

[url=http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/02/Brigette-DePape/]Brigette DePape: Life After Parliament[/url]

Quote:
How I spent my Power Summer -- first of my Tyee dispatches from hotbeds of new activism.

 

Rikardo

Brigette's silly stunt which so enthraled the Left (CCPA/the Moniter, etc.) probably convinced lots of Herper supporters that they did the right thing and may help to increase his support.  This is so typical of many Left tactics of the past 5 years which helped the Conservatives get their majority.  But she had fun.

Unionist

Rikardo wrote:

Brigette's silly stunt which so enthraled the Left (CCPA/the Moniter, etc.) probably convinced lots of Herper supporters that they did the right thing and may help to increase his support.

Yeah, ditto for all those other stunts, like workers going on strike and getting themselves locked out, and the G20 violent riots, and that in-your-face Pride stuff, and Jack saying NATO should talk to the Taliban - just gifts to Harper. I'm reading you loud and clear.

 

Gaian

When you put ego first in this fashion, NS:

"And BTW this is an open forum where I get to speak any time I want about anyones post. That is the way babble works. Here are some of your attacks that I didn't overlook but instead read them and then they formed the basis for my back biting comment.

You question the sincerity of people making arguments similar to the ones I have made. As for rhetorical devices I will admit you have a far better mastery than I."

...you are really poisoning the space for those who would like to offer ideas without having to face your angry attempts at divination.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Who died and made you moderator?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Privileged people always try to dominate the spaces they come into.  Remind and I have been trading posts for many years.  I agree with many things she posts and disagree with many others.  That is the nature of a chat site.  I didn't think babble was supposed to be merely an NDP circle jerk. Stick around and you will find that Remind can be very abrasive, as are many other posters including me, but that has not stopped us from engaging in good debates as well.  It seems to be the nature of the medium. 

If you want to nitpick Gaian then you too will get your own reputation.  By the way try to get up to sped on the quote functions.  Your repost of my thoughts made it unclear which are Remind's words and which are mine.  My post had the right formatting and clearly showed Remind's words. 

 

Pages