Green Party of Canada

249 posts / 0 new
Last post
grangerock

A quote from the Green Party's campaign flyer in the Victoria by-election:  "Green MPs vote their conscience, not the party line.  That's why Elizabeth May was the only MP to vote against bombing Libya."  Elizabeth May often says that she votes her conscience first and for her constituents before her party line.  So on the abortion issue--its anyones guess how she will vote.  Which comes to the conclusion--what does the Green Party stand for?

quizzical

tks dlivings and unionist. read his little propaganda piece.  seeings how he's a communications "expert" i don't believe he 'stumbled'  and his trying to wipe the mud off his face is just another communications excercise. he used to be liberal too. saying you're anti-choice is not a "gaffe"

i'm going to contact some friends in the Tsartlip band and see what they've got to say 'bout him.

Unionist

The conversation about Elizabeth May's views on choice have been going on here for years and much digital ink has been spilled (the following are not necessarily in chronological order):

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=00619... May answers abortion questions[/url]

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=0011... May and choice[/url]

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=00638... May's "moral opposition" to abortion[/url]

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=0006... May: Looking for common ground[/url]

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=0006... "nuanced" position on abortion[/url]

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=00708... May on the Morgentaler decision[/url]

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/join-mays-progressivish-pranti-choice-m... May's progressivish pranti-choice movement![/url]

[url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=00614... May on "the frivolous right to choose"[/url]

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/green-party-not-so-choice-ii?page=1]The Green Party is (Not-So) Choice II[/url]

... had enough?? there are many many others.

I think I'll quote, er, myself on the subject, from January 2007:

Unionist wrote:

quote:Originally posted by remind:
As she said; We must think about "right to life" for the day when abortions are made illegal again? WTF? Did I hear that correctly?

And she concluded by say this was seized upon by the left during the London campaign? Hello it was after that.

You know, I'm still disturbed by the number of progressives and even some feminists that were prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt after her initial anti-choice statements.

Why did that happen? Because she is a woman? Because she calls herself "Green"? Because she's slippery and clever?

I think this bears some retrospective analysis. It must not happen again. And May must not stop hearing the thunder of condemnation for her position until she actually abandons it.

I have no idea whether she has abandoned her position. All I know is that women's right to choose is not a minor matter for a Canadian politician.

 

socialdemocrati...

This goes back to all the discussions about MPs "voting their conscience". I don't honestly believe that all Green Party candidates are willing to erode the right to choose. But if the party position is "women's rights aren't important enough for us to have a unified position", is that really any better? Why would I donate, volunteer, and vote for a party where even SOME of my support will go to anti-choice representatives?

Elections are about choices. And I wouldn't choose the Greens, Conservatives, or Liberals when women's rights are treated as "a personal question". There should be no question.

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

This goes back to all the discussions about MPs "voting their conscience".

Oh, I don't think so. This is about the entire party, and its leader, failing to take an unequivocal stand in favour of choice. "Voting your conscience" is necessary when your party or caucus or leader or whip is advocating something unconscionable - like Harper's 2007 omnibus crime bill, which Layton whipped but Bill Siksay opposed on grounds of conscience. It's about MPs being muzzled when Québec is in upheaval, students are rising up, police have gone brutal, anti-human-rights laws are being passed. Those are the times when room must be made for individual conscience and voice.

This has nothing to do with that, whatsoever. No Green Party member is being told, "support choice unequivocally and your ass is toast". That's not the problem. The problem is what we have been discussing here for over seven years. It's about the party and the leader not supporting the human rights and equality of women.

Quote:
Elections are about choices. And I wouldn't choose the Greens, Conservatives, or Liberals when women's rights are treated as "a personal question". There should be no question.

On that, we are in full agreement.

socialdemocrati...

"Failing to take an unequivocal stand" IS the opposite of "support this unequivocally or your ass is toast". Those are the two options. People talk about the second one as this inherently evil thing. But that's what gives us choices in an election: when a party takes a stand. And that's why the first option is that much more dangerous and insidious, because now I have no idea what I'm voting for, and I get to find out what government I picked when the MPs finally "vote their conscience".

I'm voting for the "support women's rights unequivocally or your ass is toast" party.

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'm voting for the "support women's rights unequivocally or your ass is toast" party.

Unfortunatley, sdm, there ain't no such party federally - at least, none with any chance of winning seats. There are only degrees. The NDP is better than the others, but this isn't the proper thread to point to their equivocations on women's rights.

It is, however, appropriate to point out that unless and until the Green Party clearly and officially renounces Elizabeth May's bullshit on abortion, they should be exposed and condemned for it so that decent people know what they're getting.

And speaking of Adam Olsen, I didn't like his mealy-mouthed statement of "clarification" much either (the one I linked to above). He says the "state" should have no power over a woman's body. Whatever that means. How about a committee of doctors? How about the husband or boyfriend? I'd still like to see exactly what he originally said that he got attacked about, because he sure could have done a clearer job of clarification.

 

socialdemocrati...

"Better than the others" is a choice I can live with. As far as I can tell, it's the only choice we've ever had. (And it's a choice that can be made even better through external/internal pressure.)

What I'm arguing against is the false choice of "let the MPs vote their conscience". More often than not, it's an excuse that allows a party to advertise themselves as one thing, and then fail to take an unequivocal stand in parliament.

Like I said, I don't expect that May's position on abortion is going to become the official party line. Fact of the matter is, it's the same approach that the Liberals and Conservatives are taking on the issue: using it as a wedge issue in campaigns, while bringing together a disparate caucus of who-knows-what-they-believe.

addictedtomyipod

As I was at that particular debate I can give my recollection.  Olsen replied that he was against abortion because 'it messes with my blood' and 'my blood is sacred and you never mess with it', or words to that effect. I believe this comes from his aboriginal hereitage to have this belief, though I have spoken to women in my community that are also aboriginal and they say it's nonsense and paternalistic, however, I don't want to get into a debate about that I have no knoweldge of.  The air was sucked right out of the room after he said this and you could hear a pin drop.  There was a video recording of this debate and is probably available on-line somewhere.

My point was that Elizabeth May throws her support behind people that she hardly knows and maybe should pay more attention to vetting candidates.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
The conversation about Elizabeth May's views on choice have been going on here for years and much digital ink has been spilled.......I think I'll quote, er, myself on the subject, from January 2007:

Unionist wrote:

quote:Originally posted by remind:
As she said; We must think about "right to life" for the day when abortions are made illegal again? WTF? Did I hear that correctly?

And she concluded by say this was seized upon by the left during the London campaign? Hello it was after that.

You know, I'm still disturbed by the number of progressives and even some feminists that were prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt after her initial anti-choice statements.

Why did that happen? Because she is a woman? Because she calls herself "Green"? Because she's slippery and clever?

I think this bears some retrospective analysis. It must not happen again. And May must not stop hearing the thunder of condemnation for her position until she actually abandons it.

I have no idea whether she has abandoned her position. All I know is that women's right to choose is not a minor matter for a Canadian politician.

oh....mom was involved in all those discussions. huh. good side is i won't have to read it all. bad side is i'll get a "i told you so" too and i don't know who to vote for now........

 

addictedtomyipod

It's not surprising that May is anti-choice.  She is a deeply religious woman, never going without her symbol of loyalty to it around her neck on any given day.

The question is not her personal beliefs, the question is always how a Green MP will represent you in the trenches.  She always says she will represent her constituents, regardless of Party policy.  No vote whipping for them!  The last time I checked the voters are as divided as ever on issues and which ones she will choose to represent will be a like a lottery, a chance.  It looks more and more like a crap shoot to vote Green.

Aristotleded24

addictedtomyipod wrote:
The question is not her personal beliefs, the question is always how a Green MP will represent you in the trenches.  She always says she will represent her constituents, regardless of Party policy.  No vote whipping for them!  The last time I checked the voters are as divided as ever on issues and which ones she will choose to represent will be a like a lottery, a chance.  It looks more and more like a crap shoot to vote Green.

The whole "what my constituents want" is a nebulous issue. On any given issue, constituents will have several, sometimes irreconcilable views. Ever notice that "what my constituents want" is also usually aligned with the MP or party's position? What a coincidence. And it's not even true. For example, Bev Desjarlais justified her vote against same sex marraige because that's "what her consitutents wanted." But in the following election, if you divide the votes based on where the parties stood (Liberals, NDP, Green in favour, Desjarlais, Conservatives against) the equal marraige side won that election handily based on the numbers.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
For example, Bev Desjarlais justified her vote against same sex marraige because that's "what her consitutents wanted." But in the following election, if you divide the votes based on where the parties stood (Liberals, NDP, Green in favour, Desjarlais, Conservatives against) the equal marraige side won that election handily based on the numbers.

Yup - 70% in Churchill voted in January 2006 for parties that supported equal marriage. And here's the part that always impressed me. When she broke ranks on a whipped vote, she was relieved of her critic duties - but she was allowed to remain in caucus. And she was allowed to run for nomination. It was her own constituents that sent her packing, by nominating Niki Ashton (smart constituents!). And it was Desjarlais herself that decided to quit the party after that and sit briefly as an independent, until being sent packing permanently in the next election.

janfromthebruce

please bring thread back to focus on May and prevent negative thread drift.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

please bring thread back to focus on May and prevent negative thread drift.

Read the thread title. Where do you see "May"?

And what do you mean by "negative thread drift"... stuff like this maybe:

Quote:
But I can always depend on Unionist to defend both the Liberals and the Greens who always seems to want the NDP to back stop the Liberal Party of Canada.

People here are commenting about Green Party policies and candidates. Try it - you might like it.

 

janfromthebruce

Meant the Green party so a mistake but thought others would understand that the thread topic does only have to do with the Green party and not the NDP thread drift above which was taken as an opportunity to make negative comment about the NDP. With other NDP topic threads there is ample opportunity for the negative swipes there.

And please quit making it personal attack.

End of thread drift.

NDPP

Jewish Weekly Publishes Audio of Elizabeth May Interview After She Accuses Them of Twisting Her Words

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/29/jewish-weekly-publishes-audio-of...

"She said the CJPME have made a mistake in thinking that they will advance the goal of peace in the Middle East by basically putting forward an agenda hostile to the State of Israel...

The Green Party leader added that she does not agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's close ties to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,

but added 'neither would we ever want to be associated with the anti-Israel stance of the Canadians For Justice and Peace in the Middle East."

Ms May sounds about ready to cross the floor to the No Difference Party side. Another 'ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances'...

DLivings

NDPP wrote:

Ms May sounds about ready to cross the floor to the No Difference Party side. Another 'ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances'...

This is not about your post; rather it's about how you identify yourself.  Looks to me like you are mis-representing yourself...  or do I misunderstand your reference?

socialdemocrati...

Just for context:

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

He added that this should be achieved “within a framework of international law and UN resolutions”.

“So on the international-law side, we know that the current [Israeli government] settlement policies, for example, go against the fourth Geneva Convention,” Mulcair stated. “So that’s something very clear in the NDP position, which has always been my position.”

Given his opposition to settlements in the occupied territories, the Straight suggested that Mulcair wasn’t an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances.

There is no contradiction between the two,” the NDP leader replied. “You can be an ardent supporter of a country and say that something that they’re doing in that case has to be changed. But it doesn’t mean you’re not a supporter of the country. You have to be very careful with those words. What I’m saying is I’m not going to use my opposition to something that they’re doing as an excuse to call for an end to the state of Israel, which is what some of the adversaries of Israel do.”

http://www.straight.com/news/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-favours-peace-ira...

NDPP

DLivings wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Ms May sounds about ready to cross the floor to the No Difference Party side. Another 'ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances'...

This is not about your post; rather it's about how you identify yourself.  Looks to me like you are mis-representing yourself...  or do I misunderstand your reference?

Oh probably...NDPP = No Difference Party Pooper. Clear as mud now right?

DLivings

NDPP wrote:

Oh probably...NDPP = No Difference Party Pooper. Clear as mud now right?

Thanks for the clarification.

mark_alfred

The Green Party website is currently vulnerable to the Heartbleed Bug.  I tested its https site here.

Quote:
secure.greenparty.ca IS VULNERABLE.

I notified them via their contact form.

The NDP, Liberal, and Conservative secure sites (https) are fine.

 

addictedtomyipod

mark_alfred wrote:

The Green Party website is currently vulnerable to the Heartbleed Bug.  I tested its https site here.

Quote:
secure.greenparty.ca IS VULNERABLE.

I notified them via their contact form.

The NDP, Liberal, and Conservative secure sites (https) are fine.

 

 

Does this mean that anyone that donates has their information compromised?

mark_alfred

Some feel it's possible, but I doubt it.  No way to really know.  Best thing to do is, if one had been a donor in the past, is to change one's password after the site's vulnerability has been fixed.  Same for any site that uses openSSL (or any sort of https).  Other sites like yahoo.com were vulnerable, but very quickly fixed it when the vulnerability was discovered.  So, if you're a user of Yahoo (or other "secure" sites), and if they now test safe, then now would be the time to change those passwords on your accounts with them.  Presumably the Green Party will fix their site soon (though it's still vulnerable at this time).  Most major banks seem fine, though my credit union (alterna.ca) is questionable, apparently.

ETA:  every account you had, such as banking or paypal or credit card or political parties, which involved cash transactions or exchanges of any sort of private information, should have different passwords.

ETA:  secure.rabble.ca tests fine, so I've just changed my rabble password.

mark_alfred

Heartbleed test site wrote:
All good, greenparty.ca seems fixed or unaffected!
  link

sherpa-finn

Elizabeth May backs Green Party motion condemning 'illegal' Israeli settlements

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has no plans to pull her endorsement of a motion that would see the party "fully condemn all illegal Israeli settlement expansions" as "undeniable obstacles to the Israel-Palestine peace-process," despite escalating tensions in the region.

The proposed resolution is on the list of policy proposals slated to come up for debate during the party's weekend convention in Fredericton.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-backs-green-party-motion-condemning-illegal-israeli-settlements-1.2711328

 ETA: Love the apostophes around 'illegal'.

autoworker autoworker's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Elizabeth May backs Green Party motion condemning 'illegal' Israeli settlements

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has no plans to pull her endorsement of a motion that would see the party "fully condemn all illegal Israeli settlement expansions" as "undeniable obstacles to the Israel-Palestine peace-process," despite escalating tensions in the region.

The proposed resolution is on the list of policy proposals slated to come up for debate during the party's weekend convention in Fredericton.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-backs-green-party-motion-condemning-illegal-israeli-settlements-1.2711328

 ETA: Love the apostophes around 'illegal'.

Please note that the 'apostrophes' appear only in the CBC's headline, and not in the GPC's resolution.

autoworker autoworker's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Elizabeth May backs Green Party motion condemning 'illegal' Israeli settlements

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has no plans to pull her endorsement of a motion that would see the party "fully condemn all illegal Israeli settlement expansions" as "undeniable obstacles to the Israel-Palestine peace-process," despite escalating tensions in the region.

The proposed resolution is on the list of policy proposals slated to come up for debate during the party's weekend convention in Fredericton.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-backs-green-party-motion-condemning-illegal-israeli-settlements-1.2711328

 ETA: Love the apostophes around 'illegal'.

Please note that the 'apostrophes' appear only in the CBC's headline, and not in the GPC's resolution.

sherpa-finn

I suppose that one should commend the Green Party for being open enough to allow members to express diverse views on the Palestinian conflict, but take a look at this blog from the Party President:

https://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/20430/2014-07-25/why-gaza-makes-me-sad

Granted, he closes with the line "These are my personal thoughts and my personal perspective and do not necessarily speak to the thoughts and persectives of the membership and direction of the Green Party of Canada". But then what the hell is this doing on the party website?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Those disclaimers weren't there originally, and originally he had signed his name as President. Looks like he got some pushback from a party that only recently looked like it was trying to pick up NDP voters disaffected with their leader's support for Israel.

sherpa-finn

Good catch, CF.   The Brotherhood of Unionised Moderators (acronym self-evident) obviously know each others "tricks of the trade"!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

lol! Yes, but the list-serv suffers from endless tech glitches and at our meetings we just end up yelling orders at one another without actually listening to the complaints.

sherpa-finn

Moderator manipulations of her President's blog notwithstanding, Elizabeth May is not amused:

Elizabeth May distances herself from party president over Gaza

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/elizabeth-may-distances-herself-from-party-president-over-gaza

autoworker autoworker's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

Moderator manipulations of her President's blog notwithstanding, Elizabeth May is not amused:

Elizabeth May distances herself from party president over Gaza

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/elizabeth-may-distances-herself-from-party-president-over-gaza

Now that it's been established that the Green Party's leader is at odds with its president, whose personal opinions are not party policy, and who should, IMO, resign from his office, can we move on?

Unionist

autoworker wrote:
Now that it's been established that the Green Party's leader is at odds with its president, whose personal opinions are not party policy, and who should, IMO, resign from his office, can we move on?

No, we can't move on, because the racist war-crime supporter president is still publicizing his so-called "personal opinions" - today (August 5) - together with his party title:

[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/international/actualites-internationales/415126/... appuyons Israël[/url]

Unless and until the Green Party removes this individual from any official position, they deserve to be tarred by the same brush.

 

Slumberjack

Yes, and the longer this 'at odds' business is allowed to continue, the more cynics among us will understand it as a ploy on the part of the Green Party to hedge its bets, or to be able to say to influential donors that we have to placate supporters in certain respects, but please take a look at what our President is saying to get the real line on where we are.

Debater

It didn't get much media coverage, but the Green Party recently held their party convention a few weeks ago.

They said they will be picking a handful of seats to target in 2015.

After nearly taking Victoria from the NDP in the 2012 by-election, that will presumably be the area where Liz May will concentrate a lot of her resources, and on the rest of the Island.  Part of Saanich-Gulf Islands is being combined with Esquimalt-Juan De Fuca, so while Liz May be will running again in the former, the latter will presumably be another target.

The election of provincial Green MLA Andrew Weaver in the region last year means that the area clearly is the best place in Canada for Greens to get elected.  Bruce Hyer is unlikely to get elected as a Green MP in Northern Ontario, so presumably Liz May and her campaign managers will realize their best chance of additional seats is in the Victoria area.

Sean in Ottawa

What I said about the NDP in the polling thread applies to the Greens. I think May will be sure to win her seat. She has turned out to be a very good MP.

But if the Conservatives do badly and the Liberals get the benefit, there is no likely scenario for the Greens to get more seats.They too will get squeezed.

If the Liberals and Conservatives were closer then there are more likely ridings the Greens might be able to get. Some of them in Ontario. I don't think Victoria is a better bet than Hyer's seat. He is an incumbant.

 

Debater

But there is no historical strength for the Green Party in Northern Ontario.  By contrast, the Green Party has a base of support already in the Victoria area and in B.C.  It has now elected both a federal and provincial member.  Hyer will have to rely on a vote-split to get elected, and even that may not be enough.  The Liberals will be running a better campaign there next time, the NDP will want the seat back from Heyer, the Cons will want to have a shot, etc.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Who knows, with the bottom falling out of the C.R.A.P., the Greens might pick up quite a few. I got a thing from Bloomberg which said that 54% of global energy investment in the last 12 months was in renewables, so it looks like even the money is voting against the hydrocarbon-Cons.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Oh, and Hydrocarbon-Liberals I forgot to add. After all, Pops was big on the National Energy Program, being leader of the Natural Resources Party and all.

onlinediscountanvils

It's being reported that Estrin has resigned as party president this evening.

Unionist

Good riddance! And good for the Greens.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Unionist wrote:

Good riddance! And good for the Greens.

 

Now, can we move on?

autoworker autoworker's picture

Double post

autoworker autoworker's picture

Triple post

Debater

One has to give Elizabeth May some credit.  It can't be easy being a leader of a party with only one real seat in the House of Commons.  But she has worked hard to attain a 2nd seat for the Green Party since the last election, and she kind of achieved it for now with getting Bruce Hyer to cross over.  He's not an elected Green, but it at least gives her a toehold momentarily and allows her some additional resources from having an additional MP office & voice out there.

She almost succeeded in picking up Victoria from the NDP in 2012.

Then she tried to get Georges Laroque elected in Bourassa in 2013.

When neither of those attempts worked, she finally got her 2nd Green MP in the person of Bruce Hyer.  He faces a difficult election in Northern Ontario in my view, but you have to give her credit for being persistent in finding a way to get that additional Green seat in the current Parliament.

nicky

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/we-must-not-make-the-same-mistake-with-the...

A cautionary tale from Britain showing how the Greens are enemies of progressive politics.

More than an echo with Canada

Atlas

I just received a mailout from Elizabeth May and the Green Party. It was all about "democracy" and how "democratic" and "principled" the Greens are. Yet, EMay couldn't move fast enough to admit NDP MP Bruce Hyer into her caucus notwithstanding he has no democratic mandate whatsoever from his voters to do so. Democracy is about allowing the voters to choose their representative, and there is no question whatsoever that Hyer would never have been elected as a Green in Thunder Bay. Rather than congratulate EMay for her shrewdness in doubling her caucus (from 1 to 2), she should be taken to task for violating the essential principles of democracy and opportunistically putting her own Party interests over those of the voters, and democratic principles. And if she is so sure that the voters of Thunder Bay want a Green MP, than she should compel Hyer to resign and put that question to the test of the voters, where the decision truly, and democratically, belongs.

Brachina

Agreed Atlas

Pages