Erin Weir accused of harassment 2

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
Erin Weir accused of harassment 2

Continued from here.

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
robbie_dee

Is there really anything left to be said? Perhaps there will be more to discuss after the Burnaby South byelection.

robbie_dee

This is perhaps worth noting:

Weir won't be banned from attending provincial NDP events (Regina Leader-Post)

Nice to know Erin hasn't suddenly turned radioactive at least.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The provincial and federal parties are two separate entities but who are supposed to share a common social democratic vision.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..what they share in common is that the leaderships represent the third way. that they never offer up an alternative to neoliberalism or capitalism.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:

The provincial and federal parties are two separate entities but who are supposed to share a common social democratic vision.

Not sure what you mean. The only way to be a member of the federal party is to join the provincial party. They are one and the same.

JKR

robbie_dee wrote:

This is perhaps worth noting:

Weir won't be banned from attending provincial NDP events (Regina Leader-Post)

Nice to know Erin hasn't suddenly turned radioactive at least.

Will he be banned from attending federal NDP events?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not sure what you mean. The only way to be a member of the federal party is to join the provincial party. They are one and the same.

Do you join them separately?  Are there separate fees or rights?  Can you join a provincial NDP without joining the federal NDP?

If so, then they're not really one and the same.  It just means that provincial membership is a condition of federal membership.  I'm not saying there's a logic to such a condition of membership, but there you go.  Parties, eh?

ed'd to add:  well, NVM.  Looks like they offer a package deal.  Huh.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I did not have a provincial membership when I got my federal membership. Maybe it works that way in your province but it doesn't in mine.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:

I did not have a provincial membership when I got my federal membership. Maybe it works that way in your province but it doesn't in mine.

You can't get a federal membership without a provincial membership. In any province. Article III, Section 1(2) of the federal NDP constitution reads as follows:

Quote:
Applications for individual membership shall be dealt with in accordance with the constitution of the appropriate provincial Party and shall be subject to the approval of that provincial Party.

Not sure what forms you signed, but if you'd like to share the text, I'd be interested in seeing what happened.

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Do you join them separately?  Are there separate fees or rights?  Can you join a provincial NDP without joining the federal NDP?

No. No. And No.

Quote:
ed'd to add:  well, NVM.  Looks like they offer a package deal.  Huh.

Correct.

cco

One asterisk: In Québec, federal membership doesn't make you an NPDQ member, and vice-versa. In fact, quite a few federal NDPers I know here are also QS members.

Unionist

cco wrote:
One asterisk: In Québec, federal membership doesn't make you an NPDQ member, and vice-versa. In fact, quite a few federal NDPers I know here are also QS members.

Slightly wrong, cco. This is exactly why I didn't join the party in 2010 during the federal leadership race. I went to the table and read the texts. Here's Article III, Section 1(1) of the federal constitution:

Quote:
Individual membership shall be open to every resident of Canada, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or national origin who undertakes to accept and abide by the constitution and principles of the Party and who is not a member or supporter of any other political party.

It used to be interpreted that if there was no provincial NDP (which used to be the case), you could join even if you were a member or supporter of another provincial party. I thought that was too cute by half in 2010, and didn't join. Today, even that is clearly impossible.

As a member of QS, I was (and am) not eligible for NDP membership. Your NDP/QS friends are all in violation of the constitution. Unless some genius interprets the "not a member or supporter" clause as applying only at the moment of signing the application form - which would mean you could join, and the next day, join three more parties. That also would be too cute by half.

I'm well aware - and very happy - that many who support the NDP federally also support and work for QS provincially. But I guess I'm repeating myself: That's a clear violation of the constitution.

 

gadar

Unionist wrote:

 They are one and the same.

That is my understanding as well.

Keeping that in mind, isnt then the Alberta group of NDP pulling against its parent organization? 

Unionist

Ousted NDP MP Erin Weir says he plans to seek his party’s nomination again

Quote:
“The real question is what Mr. Singh intends," Mr. Weir said in a phone interview from Ottawa. "Will he ignore more than 2,000 NDP members in Regina–Lewvan and appoint his own candidate?” [...]

Mr. Weir also denounced Mr. Singh’s comments this week dismissing a letter signed by more than five-dozen former Saskatchewan NDP MLAs and MPs in support of Mr. Weir. The NDP Leader suggested he would not be intimidated by people of “privilege.”

“I find it disappointing Mr. Singh has tried to dismiss 67 long-serving Saskatchewan NDP MPs and MLAs as ‘privileged’ rather than engaging with the substantial concerns they raised about the lack of due process and common sense they raised,” Mr. Weir said.

voice of the damned

gadar wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 They are one and the same.

That is my understanding as well.

Keeping that in mind, isnt then the Alberta group of NDP pulling against its parent organization? 

Well, I guess. But is this the very first time in history that a provincial NDP has disagreed with the federal NDP, or another provincial NDP, on a particular matter? (In the manner of, say, the Lougheed-Davis-Clark non-love triangle during the 80s "Energy Wars")

Also, is the federal party actually constituted as a "parent organization" vis-a-vis the provincial parties? Do the latter have some obligation to align their policies with the former, but not vice-versa? (Sincere question)  

 

Notalib

Unionist wrote:

Ousted NDP MP Erin Weir says he plans to seek his party’s nomination again

Quote:
“The real question is what Mr. Singh intends," Mr. Weir said in a phone interview from Ottawa. "Will he ignore more than 2,000 NDP members in Regina–Lewvan and appoint his own candidate?” [...]

Mr. Weir also denounced Mr. Singh’s comments this week dismissing a letter signed by more than five-dozen former Saskatchewan NDP MLAs and MPs in support of Mr. Weir. The NDP Leader suggested he would not be intimidated by people of “privilege.”

“I find it disappointing Mr. Singh has tried to dismiss 67 long-serving Saskatchewan NDP MPs and MLAs as ‘privileged’ rather than engaging with the substantial concerns they raised about the lack of due process and common sense they raised,” Mr. Weir said.

Stunning arrogance on display..... but par for the course for Steelworkers.

This list will only grown, Weir will not be an NDP candidate, and he his cohorts will continue to destroy the party's electoral potential. All so predictable.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vicky-smallman/a-thank-you-for-ndp-leader...

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:
Also, is the federal party actually constituted as a "parent organization" vis-a-vis the provincial parties? Do the latter have some obligation to align their policies with the former, but not vice-versa? (Sincere question)  

No. Note "principles" not "policies".

Each province of Canada shall have a fully autonomous provincial Party, provided its constitution and principles are not in conflict with those of the Federal Party.

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/constitution/2013_CONSTITUTION_E.pdf

josh

Unionist wrote:

Ousted NDP MP Erin Weir says he plans to seek his party’s nomination again

Quote:
“The real question is what Mr. Singh intends," Mr. Weir said in a phone interview from Ottawa. "Will he ignore more than 2,000 NDP members in Regina–Lewvan and appoint his own candidate?” [...]

Mr. Weir also denounced Mr. Singh’s comments this week dismissing a letter signed by more than five-dozen former Saskatchewan NDP MLAs and MPs in support of Mr. Weir. The NDP Leader suggested he would not be intimidated by people of “privilege.”

“I find it disappointing Mr. Singh has tried to dismiss 67 long-serving Saskatchewan NDP MPs and MLAs as ‘privileged’ rather than engaging with the substantial concerns they raised about the lack of due process and common sense they raised,” Mr. Weir said.

Good for Weir.  Keep fighting.

voice of the damned

brookmere wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Also, is the federal party actually constituted as a "parent organization" vis-a-vis the provincial parties? Do the latter have some obligation to align their policies with the former, but not vice-versa? (Sincere question)  

No. Note "principles" not "policies".

Each province of Canada shall have a fully autonomous provincial Party, provided its constitution and principles are not in conflict with those of the Federal Party.

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/constitution/2013_CONSTITUTION_E.pdf

Thanks.

So, basically, they can have different or even contradictory policies from the federal party, as long as their stated principles are the same. That would seem to allow quite a bit of leeway.