Giambrone by-election imbroglio

235 posts / 0 new
Last post
aka Mycroft
Giambrone by-election imbroglio

NDP fights for its soul in Scarborough civil war: Cohn

Quote:

And who were all his new-found suburban supporters, whose names didn’t appear on a printed list of members signed up before the 30-day cut-off? Riding stalwarts challenged the unlisted new arrivals, but NDP secretary Darlene Lawson vouched for one of them and waved off all objections.

Twelve names are in dispute. Given that Giambrone won by a mere two-vote margin, the outcome is now in doubt. Chhabra’s lawyer is demanding that the NDP come clean on all those mystery members at the meeting.

“If we do not receive a satisfactory response from you by Thursday, July 18, 2013 at noon, Ms. Chhabra will be forced to take legal action, including seeking an urgent order invalidating the results of the nomination meeting and requiring such a meeting to be held again prior to the byelection,” reads the letter from lawyer Paul-Erik Veel.

“The NDP is the party of fairness and justice, so I’m fighting for fairness and justice,” Chhabra told me in an interview. “I do not believe that due process was followed.”

NDP Contender Considers Legal Action to Invalidate Adam Giambrone’s Nomination in Scarborough-Guildwood

Quote:

In a letter sent Monday, Chhabra’s lawyer Paul-Erik Veel asks that the Ontario NDP immediately verify the eligibility of the voters in question. If the party cannot provide verification, Veel says Chhabra will pursue legal action, including “an urgent order invalidating the results of the Nomination Meeting and requiring such a meeting to be held again prior to the by-election.”

The NDP previously brushed off a request by the riding association for the same information regarding the disputed voters saying :

Quote:

Once by-elections are over, and staff resources permit, membership lists will continue to be made available to ridings for the above purposes.

Really? Everyone knows that the provincial secretary could easily print up a riding membership list in seconds without taxing "staff resources"? Is there any reason to think that the whole Giambrone mess isn't just a (failing) attempt at cronyism where Giambrone's friends in the party bureaucracy tried to stitch up a nomination for him as part of his rehabilitation effort and, in the process, screwed an immigrant, female, disabled union activist who is exactly the sort of person who should be a candidate?

Quote:

Joy Taylor has been emailing me daily updates, imploring me to write about a miscarriage of democracy.

“Can you imagine my frustration that a nomination was stolen from a vibrant, wonderful candidate in Amarjeet Chhabra?” she asked. “It is honestly keeping me awake at night.”

Taylor is a lifelong NDP activist. At age 90, that amounts to 74 years of licking envelopes and rallying to the cause. Horwath routinely greets her with a hug at party events. But when Taylor marched up to Horwath outside Giambrone’s campaign office the other day to hand her a protest note, there was no warm embrace — just stony silence.

“An illegal candidate is to run in our riding,” Taylor fumes. “I cry for people in my riding.”

And what is her message to Horwath?

“You have betrayed me.”

 

Krago

Nominations close at 2pm today.

Lens Solution

NDP Contender Considers Legal Action to Invalidate Adam Giambrone’s Nomination in Scarborough-Guildwood

 

Amarjeet Chhabra says she lost by four votes, and believes a dozen voters were ineligible.

 

http://torontoist.com/2013/07/ndp-contender-considers-legal-action-to-in...

 

onlinediscountanvils

I'm pleased to see that Amarjeet isn't just letting this drop. I know some people were hoping she'd set aside her concerns in the spirit of party unity. But I think her credibility as a union organizer would have taken a bit of a hit if she had chosen to just 'go along to get along'. It becomes a lot harder to convince workers to organize and fight for their rights if they see that you won't fight for your own.

Stockholm

She seems to have some very high priced legal representation. I wonder who's paying for it?

Of course the lawyer can't be all that smart if he's demanding a new nomination contest literally hours before nominations close with Elections Ontario!

onlinediscountanvils

Stockholm wrote:
She seems to have some very high priced legal representation. I wonder who's paying for it?

What ever could you be implying?

Todrick of Chat...
Stockholm

I don't know...I'm just curious who is paying for her very expensive legal representation. is she independently wealthy?

Todrick of Chat...

 Well Stockholm, I would hazard a guess that the average politician is more wealth than the majority of Canadians.

Stockholm

An ELECTED politician makes a decent living. Someone who throws their hat in the ring to get nominated is not a politician and in many cases doesn't make much money

Lens Solution

Who says she has expensive legal representation?  All we know so far is that she's had a lawyer's letter drafted and may proceed farther.

It's not as if she's hired one of Canada's top lawyers to engage in major litigation for years on end before the hightest courts in the land.

Most people can afford to pay a lawyer for a letter and a few days work.

onlinediscountanvils

Stockholm wrote:
I'm just curious who is paying for her very expensive legal representation. is she independently wealthy?

Does one have to be independently wealthy to have legal representation? Is it that hard to imagine that someone who works for a union might earn enough to be able to hire a lawyer? What's your basis for your assertion that her lawyer is "very high priced"? How do you know what - if anything - he's billing her?

[cross-posted with Lens Solution]

Stockholm

Apparently her lawyer met with NDP lawyers today and I just read that she has decided to drop the case (in my experience when lawyers go into meetings with one another, the meter quickly runs into the thousands of dollars)

Krago

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

I'm pleased to see that Amarjeet isn't just letting this drop. I know some people were hoping she'd set aside her concerns in the spirit of party unity. But I think her credibility as a union organizer would have taken a bit of a hit if she had chosen to just 'go along to get along'. It becomes a lot harder to convince workers to organize and fight for their rights if they see that you won't fight for your own.

I agree with you.  In fact, most Canadian unions encourage their members to air internal union disputes publicly by contacting the National Post.

onlinediscountanvils

Krago wrote:
most Canadian unions encourage their members to air internal union disputes publicly by contacting the National Post.

Yeah... 'cause that's exactly what she did. *rolls eyes*

Stockholm

As the saying goes - everyone gets they 15 seconds of fame.

Lens Solution

Well, the issue may have been worked out privately, but the effects of it may continue to linger for some time.

Todrick of Chat...

I am thinking a large cash bonus and new position to be determined later on.

Todrick of Chat...
NDPP

ndp=no difference party

edmundoconnor

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Looks like the NDP Headquarters’ managed to silenced Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/18/runnerup_to_adam_giambrone_says_she_wont_pursue_legal_action_against_ndp_over_nomination.html 

From what little I've seen and read of Amarjeet (more than some, less than others), she does not seem like the kind of person to crumble easily under threats or be seduced by bribes. It's possible that while she viewed the matter with distaste, she was not willing to burn bridges within the party to get a resolution she was happy with. I suspect we will never know her exact motivations.

Todrick of Chat...

In other words Edmundoconnor, she gave up her fight so the party would not be hurt by another scandal. True democracy at work in Ontario.

Stockholm

edmundoconnor wrote:

From what little I've seen and read of Amarjeet (more than some, less than others), she does not seem like the kind of person to crumble easily under threats or be seduced by bribes. It's possible that while she viewed the matter with distaste, she was not willing to burn bridges within the party to get a resolution she was happy with. I suspect we will never know her exact motivations.

Here is one hypothesis. She was probably told by her lawyers that there was zero chance of winning. For one thing the deadline for nominations was the very next day so there was literally no time to hold a new nomination contest and re-choose a candidate even if everyone wanted to. For another thing, any judge would be extremely reluctant to wade into a dispute involving internal party processes and rules that having nothing to do with any actual laws etc... organizations (ie: parties, NGOs, corporations, unions etc...) are free to set their own internal rules and their own internal dispute resolution mechanisms - there is no way a judge is going to wade into that. If by chance a judge even agreed to hear the case, cases like this would tie up a court for weeks and weeks - so what would the lawyer do? Ask a court for an injunction postponing the entire Scarborough-Guildwood byelection indefinitely until the case was resolved?? Fat chance.

For the party it doesn't really matter. Whatever bad publicity there was going to be has already happened. If anyone in Scarborough-Guildwood actually reads Martin Regg Cohn's column in the Star - they might be less likely to vote for Giambrone - and that won't change whether this case was pursued or not.

Lens Solution

As she explains in her statement, part of the reason is because there's only 2 weeks left until by-election day.  It may be that she felt neither candidate would benefit from prolonging the dispute because of the toll it would take on whoever emerged from it.

Btw, I think the news has spread farther than just one or two columns.  It's being talked about on Twitter, Judy Rebick has commented on it from what I saw earlier on Facebook, and reporters keep asking Giambrone about it.  So while the worst of the 'storm' is over, it may follow him into August 1.

Stockholm

Lens Solution wrote:

As she explains in her statement, part of the reason is because there's only 2 weeks left until by-election day.  It may be that she felt neither candidate would benefit from prolonging the dispute because of the toll it would take on whoever emerged from it.

As if either candidate benefitted from initiating the dispute in the first place.

The reality is almost certainly that she didn't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees when there was zero chance of of winning...and its not like she could retroactively be made the candidate six months from now and have the byelection re-run.

aka Mycroft

If it is the case that several people were alllowed to vote without being entitled to should the provincial secretary have to resign?

Stockholm

No, that would be like saying that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has to resign because someone ineligible cast a vote in ther last election.

Robo

As I wrote in Post #179 of
this thread, even if one accepted the statements as alleged in the media coverage, allowing members in good standing who belong to riding associations other than Scarborough-Guildwood but who live in Scarborough-Guildwood at the time in question are allowed by the party constitution to vote at a nomination meeting. It seems that at least one local executive member did not like that an aspect of the rules; I have heard nothing specific to date that shows the proper rules were not followed.

Any "imbroglio" that exists is among people who have read nothing more than a headline and have not considered that the wrong that is alleged, even if it is 100% true as alleged, was as example of the rules being followed.

Lens Solution

Political ‘bigfooting’ in Ontario leaves its mark on byelection trail

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/07/19/political_bigfooting_i...

NorthReport

Scarborough subway smells like another Liberal con job

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/07/20130...

aka Mycroft

Stockholm wrote:

No, that would be like saying that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has to resign because someone ineligible cast a vote in ther last election.

It would be like that - if Chief Electoral Officer was the DRO at a polling station and allowed unqualified people to vote over the objections of scrutineers. In that case I suspect the C.E.O would be required to resign because of their personal involvement.

Robo

aka Mycroft wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

No, that would be like saying that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has to resign because someone ineligible cast a vote in ther last election.

It would be like that - if Chief Electoral Officer was the DRO at a polling station and allowed unqualified people to vote over the objections of scrutineers. ...

Except that there has been no public allegation that I have read yet that any scrutineer or anyone at the nomination meeting objected prior to the vote that an improper voter was going to cast a ballot and had that objection ignored. As written above, the public allegations that I have read to date do not indicate that the party constitution was violated, only that the person complaining does not like what the party constitution allows.

Pogo

20 years ago, but I remember getting two lists for nomination meetings.  One had members of the riding and the other was of members of other ridings whose residency allowed them to vote in this riding. 

adma

The sad thing about it all is that the NDP could have had a chance w/those Scarberians who were disgusted by Council's subway-vote antics last week (and the Grit/Tory complicitness in it all) and wanted a "positive alternative".  Instead, they got a downtown interloper as a reminder of how they got so sick and tired in the first place.

Hands up, everyone who thinks the NDP actually could have done better and more credibly w/Chhabra.  (Then again, it's like offering that the 2006 federal Grits could have done better in Etobicoke-Lakeshore w/Jean Augustine than w/Iggy.  And they probably *would have*, share-wise.)

Skinny Dipper

The problem with Adam Giambrone in Scarborough-Guildwood is that the NDP messaging is no longer about the NDP and its platform.  It's about Adam Giambrone.  The dispute about Adam Giambrone's successful candidacy gives voters reasons to doubt his ability to become the the next MPP.

I don't think Mr. Giambrone will win Scarborough-Guildwood.  One problem with him parachuting into the riding is that he may not be in tune with the issues affecting the residents of the riding.  Another problem is that it creates doubt about Andrea Horwath's ability to lead Ontario with integrity.  If there were doubts about the legitimacy of the NDP nomination meeting and Ms. Horwath's acceptance of Mr. Giambrone's successful nomination, then what kind of integrity would an NDP government have in Ontario?

Stockholm

To the extent that Adam Giambrone might be viewed by some as being "more electable" (and quite frankly, I'm not sure that anyone is e;ectable for the NDP in this riding) - it has zero to do with him being "a white person who pees standing up". Its that he is a well-known person who has a lengthy resume who could be considered a "household name" - compared to someone who is a complete unknown.

Right now the most "electable" person the NDP/left could possible run for mayor of Toronto happens to be "a Chinese person who pees sitting down" (ie: Olivia Chow). I can think of another "white person who pees standing up" who is probably the most UNelectable person the NDP could ever run for any position anywhere in Canada - named Barry Weisleder.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Look, I'm not the chairman of the Barry Weisleder fan club.  My only point in mentioning his de-selection in a different exchange with you was that you had asserted that ONDP nominations were controlled solely by the riding association in question.  Obviously, if he could be stripped of a nomination, that proves that that statement wasn't correct.  I don't actually care about Weisleder that much(you are obsessed with him, for some reason)and I'm sure he can take care of himself.   Still, in the end, the candidate that the ONDP DID put in instead of Weisleder didn't do any better than Weisleder would have, and there's little reason to expect a candidate who mainly presents as "safe" on the stump(as the cypher they put in in Weisleder's place did)would even be worth electing.  Being noncontroversial and predictable during the campaign almost always means being irrelevant and useless once elected.  Meaningful and positive change is almost never made by the quiet and reassuring.

And I'm sure Giambrone has a lot going for him...I'm not saying the man is the antichrist or anything-but there were legitimate reasons to question the process by which he was nominated and to object to his insistence on seeking a provincial legislative nomination against someone he had personally encouraged to seek the nomination for herself.  Once Giambrone had encouraged Chhambra to seek the nomination, that pretty much obligated him NOT to jump in and essentially make himself the "stop Chhambra" candidate.  And there is also reason to ask, given the sequence of events, if Giambrone stepped in in Scarborough because, for some paranoid reason, Horwath decided that she couldn't let the nomination there go to a woman of color.

Clearly, everything would be better if Giambrone had stayed the hell out of Scarborough.  I think even you would have to agree with that by now, Stocks.

 

 

Todrick of Chat...

Skinny Dipper wrote:

If there were doubts about the legitimacy of the NDP nomination meeting and Ms. Horwath's acceptance of Mr. Giambrone's successful nomination, then what kind of integrity would an NDP government have in Ontario?

ONDP and the words legitimacy and integrity should not be used in the same sentence.

Robo

Ken Burch wrote:
(1) ... there were legitimate reasons to question the process by which he was nominated (2) ...and to object to his insistence on seeking a provincial legislative nomination against someone he had personally encouraged to seek the nomination for herself.  (3) Once Giambrone had encouraged Chhambra to seek the nomination, that pretty much obligated him NOT to jump in and essentially make himself the "stop Chhambra" candidate.  (4)And there is also reason to ask, given the sequence of events, if Giambrone stepped in in Scarborough because, for some paranoid reason, Horwath decided that she couldn't let the nomination there go to a woman of color.

(I added the numbers into the quote above, to make my responses easier.)

(1) As I have written here many times in this thread, I have not yet heard an allegation that alleges the ONDP constitution was not followed at this nomination meeting. (The story above about being given the list of people inside the riding association that can vote and a separate list of people who belong to other riding associations that can vote was a system I recall from the past. As I wrote, the last time I was involved in a nomination meeting, we arranged for someone to be available at Provincial Office who had access to a phone, and we checked one person who presented as being a member elsewhere who was confirmed as such by phone. I have not heard any allegation that a printed list was refused prior to the meeting -- all that I have heard is that some people who were not members of the Scarborough-Guildwood NDP riding association without reference to holding memberships in other riding associations). Since I have asked these questions, no one has referred me to a complaint from the person(s) who brought the original complaint that alleges anything occurred that is not consistent with the ONDP constitution.

(2) I have personally encouraged at least several dozen people to seek a nomination -- several in the same riding. I did not support each of them. I think it is good to have contested nomination meetings, as a broad rule (as long as people do not try to win by attacking other candidates and instead try to win by selling their own virtues as a candidate.) That's a normal thing in the Candidate Search process, from my experience.

(3) I have never done so, but I know of two people who have been on riding candidate search committees who resigned and sought that riding's nomination. To continue on is a conflict; resigning from the committee cures the conflict. People change their minds, and are allowed to. Again, I have never acted as if my encouragement to Person A to become a candidate was an indication that I personally had to support that candidate in a contested nomination meeting -- whenever Person A has asked "Will I have your support?", I have answered that s/he will once s/he wins the nomination, but I would refrain from endorsing anyone before the nomination meeting. What happened in this case, again considering what I have read as alleged, is consistent with what goes on in many riding associations and is nothing to disparage.

And who on earth thought that Giambrone's decision to seek the nomination was motivated by a desire to "stop Chhabra"? I have no doubt that he had reasons to choose to seek the nomination. Anyone who seeks a constested nomination necessarily has to argue that the other person(s) should not be chosen -- but what reasonable person here has suggested that was a motivation of any substance?

(4) Of course, this comment ignores that a man of colour is running for the NDP in Etobicoke-Lakeshore at present, and a woman with a disability in running in Ottawa South. Sure, there no more "reason to ask" your question than there is for me to suggest that you must not be a Canadian for even asking such a question. Of course, mine is a ridiculous statement -- and so is yours. (I will gladly remove this paragraph if you delete your groundless statement from your posting -- I have no idea why anyone would post such a baseless suggestion in this forum.)

Pogo

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

ONDP and the words legitimacy and integrity should not be used in the same sentence.

I wish some of the critics would research and find out what the actual claims are about.  It sure looks like they don't like rules that have existed for decades and seem pretty logical (all riding residents who are members get a vote regardless of their particular riding membership). 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Robo wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
(1) ... there were legitimate reasons to question the process by which he was nominated (2) ...and to object to his insistence on seeking a provincial legislative nomination against someone he had personally encouraged to seek the nomination for herself.  (3) Once Giambrone had encouraged Chhambra to seek the nomination, that pretty much obligated him NOT to jump in and essentially make himself the "stop Chhambra" candidate.  (4)And there is also reason to ask, given the sequence of events, if Giambrone stepped in in Scarborough because, for some paranoid reason, Horwath decided that she couldn't let the nomination there go to a woman of color.

(I added the numbers into the quote above, to make my responses easier.)

(1) As I have written here many times in this thread, I have not yet heard an allegation that alleges the ONDP constitution was not followed at this nomination meeting. (The story above about being given the list of people inside the riding association that can vote and a separate list of people who belong to other riding associations that can vote was a system I recall from the past. As I wrote, the last time I was involved in a nomination meeting, we arranged for someone to be available at Provincial Office who had access to a phone, and we checked one person who presented as being a member elsewhere who was confirmed as such by phone. I have not heard any allegation that a printed list was refused prior to the meeting -- all that I have heard is that some people who were not members of the Scarborough-Guildwood NDP riding association without reference to holding memberships in other riding associations). Since I have asked these questions, no one has referred me to a complaint from the person(s) who brought the original complaint that alleges anything occurred that is not consistent with the ONDP constitution.

(2) I have personally encouraged at least several dozen people to seek a nomination -- several in the same riding. I did not support each of them. I think it is good to have contested nomination meetings, as a broad rule (as long as people do not try to win by attacking other candidates and instead try to win by selling their own virtues as a candidate.) That's a normal thing in the Candidate Search process, from my experience.

(3) I have never done so, but I know of two people who have been on riding candidate search committees who resigned and sought that riding's nomination. To continue on is a conflict; resigning from the committee cures the conflict. People change their minds, and are allowed to. Again, I have never acted as if my encouragement to Person A to become a candidate was an indication that I personally had to support that candidate in a contested nomination meeting -- whenever Person A has asked "Will I have your support?", I have answered that s/he will once s/he wins the nomination, but I would refrain from endorsing anyone before the nomination meeting. What happened in this case, again considering what I have read as alleged, is consistent with what goes on in many riding associations and is nothing to disparage.

And who on earth thought that Giambrone's decision to seek the nomination was motivated by a desire to "stop Chhabra"? I have no doubt that he had reasons to choose to seek the nomination. Anyone who seeks a constested nomination necessarily has to argue that the other person(s) should not be chosen -- but what reasonable person here has suggested that was a motivation of any substance?

(4) Of course, this comment ignores that a man of colour is running for the NDP in Etobicoke-Lakeshore at present, and a woman with a disability in running in Ottawa South. Sure, there no more "reason to ask" your question than there is for me to suggest that you must not be a Canadian for even asking such a question. Of course, mine is a ridiculous statement -- and so is yours. (I will gladly remove this paragraph if you delete your groundless statement from your posting -- I have no idea why anyone would post such a baseless suggestion in this forum.)

I have never claimed to be a Canadian...I am a left-wing Yank who follows Canadian politics and admires those Canadian leftists who stand up courageously for egalitarian democratic ideals and for peace in the face of the imperial arrogance of the leaders of my country.  The reason I posted on this incident was that I read accounts of the event from left-Canadians that I trust and respect.

You could call it internationalism, and I'm fine with Canadians saying whatever they want to say about events in the States, for what that's worth to you. 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Stockholm wrote:
  it has zero to do with him being "a white person who pees standing up". Its that he is a well-known person who has a lengthy resume who could be considered a "household name" - compared to someone who is a complete unknown.

Actually, being a white man is precisely why he has a lengthy resume and is a household name. This is how systemic sexism works. It's real.

And Chhabra isn't a complete unknown to folks in Scarborough. Who are, you know, the ones voting.

And, what Ken B said:

Ken Burch wrote:
 With Amarjeet, this byelection would have meant something, win or lose.  With Giambrone, it was never really going to be about anything but one guy's sense of entitlement.

And hey, boys, using language re. peeing standing up/sitting down is a really fucked up way to talk about systemic sexism. Or, not to talk about it.

And yeah, racism. The NDP's got lots of that going on, and this is but one sad example.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sorry about the peeing reference-the idea was to try to use blunt terminology to cut through the doubletalk-but I could have found another way to do that.  My bad.  Happy monday, Maysie.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Thanks Ken, and happy Monday's-almost-over to you too. Smile

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I don't know...I'm just curious who is paying for her very expensive legal representation. is she independently wealthy?

Why do you keep using the phrase "very expensive legal representation"as though simply repeating a reference to the normal price the attorneys working on this case would charge other clients somehow proves there's something insidious going on here?  Had it not occurred to you that the lawyers involved might simply be donating there services here because they see this as a legitimate issue of right and wrong?

And if you think that the supposedly "very expensive" lawyers somehow prove that the challenge to Giambrone's nomination was just a Liberal Party plot, man up and SAY that, for God's sakes.  Don't be posting passive-aggressive "we all know what this means, don't we?" comments like the one I quoted above.  Neither Amarjeet Chhabra nor those who had concerns about the way Giambrone was selected did anything to deserve your dismissiveness and your contempt.

You sound like the sort of person who would have defended the federal NDP's refusal to put Howard McCurdy on its original executive council in 1961 out of fear that voters would be driven away if the party let black people play any significant role in it.  And frankly, Stocks, I think of you as being a better person than that.

The stupid thing is, this was never a seat the ONDP had a real chance of winning...thus, there was no "hardball" justification for what now looks like a heavy-handed effort to shove the candidate who looked like she'd be nominated aside in favor of somebody who was supposedly more "electable"(i.e., an aggressive white dude-post edited to remove unnecessary urinary phraseology). With Amarjeet, this byelection would have meant something, win or lose.  With Giambrone, it was never really going to be about anything but one guy's sense of entitlement. He should just have waited for an open Toronto nomination in the provincial election.  He had no reason to force his way into a contest in a riding he has no connection to and can't possibly understand.

 

Aristotleded24

Maysie wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
  it has zero to do with him being "a white person who pees standing up". Its that he is a well-known person who has a lengthy resume who could be considered a "household name" - compared to someone who is a complete unknown.

Actually, being a white man is precisely why he has a lengthy resume and is a household name. This is how systemic sexism works. It's real.

And Chhabra isn't a complete unknown to folks in Scarborough. Who are, you know, the ones voting.

To this, I would add that issues of gender and race aside, Scarborough has different issues than downtown Toronto. On the face of it, this move smacks of parachuting in a big name in order to advance one's political career, which tends to turn people off, and if I were in Scarborough deciding who to vote for, would resent what feels like an intrusion. After all, am I voting for someone who will represent my community, or am I merely a stepping stone along the career path of a well-known politician?

genstrike

As someone who was only briefly a member of the NDP during a provincial leadership race in which there were some allegations of backroom shenanigans to disadvantage the candidate who I supported, I'm just curious - what is the appropriate route of appeal for someone who genuinely believes that something fishy went on at something like a nomination meeting?  Surely, it's not to simply grin and bear it for the sake of party unity?

Stockholm

Maysie wrote:

And Chhabra isn't a complete unknown to folks in Scarborough. Who are, you know, the ones voting.

That's right, I forgot that she previously ran for city council in Scarborough and came in dead last out of nine candidates getting just 1% of the vote. There must be a real personality cult going on there!

janfromthebruce

Maysie wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
  it has zero to do with him being "a white person who pees standing up". Its that he is a well-known person who has a lengthy resume who could be considered a "household name" - compared to someone who is a complete unknown.

Actually, being a white man is precisely why he has a lengthy resume and is a household name. This is how systemic sexism works. It's real.

And, what Ken B said:

Ken Burch wrote:
 With Amarjeet, this byelection would have meant something, win or lose.  With Giambrone, it was never really going to be about anything but one guy's sense of entitlement.

And hey, boys, using language re. peeing standing up/sitting down is a really fucked up way to talk about systemic sexism. Or, not to talk about it.

And yeah, racism. The NDP's got lots of that going on, and this is but one sad example.

So we could apply the same justaposition and suggest that Olivia Chow "is a well-known person who has a lengthy resume who could be considered a "household name"'., and yet we could not allege systemic racism or genderism (for the obvious reasons).

Giambrone is a household name because he was elected to city council a few times and also he was chair of Toronto City Council transportation committee. It has zero, in my opinion because he is a white guy. And perhaps he overcame the ageism divide by being elected in his twenties.

And he is a well known name in the NDP, having been elected the federal president when perhaps it was not a much sought after job in his twenties.

So did it make sense for the riding association members to elect the candidate who had the most public experience on transportation in Toronto, considering that it's the hottist issue in Scarborough? Maybe, I would think. And he was great credibility.

If Giambrone won the nomination and voted on by the membership they did so and not because of systemic racism but for other reasons. And by alleging racism it would mean that the majority of voting members were racists. That's sad.

wage zombie

genstrike wrote:

As someone who was only briefly a member of the NDP during a provincial leadership race in which there were some allegations of backroom shenanigans to disadvantage the candidate who I supported, I'm just curious - what is the appropriate route of appeal for someone who genuinely believes that something fishy went on at something like a nomination meeting?  Surely, it's not to simply grin and bear it for the sake of party unity?

This is great, potentially productive question.  I hope more people take a stab at answering.

First, since we're being hypothetical here, it's better to be prepared than have to scramble after the fact.  Having a deep knowledge of the rules and the constitution before going into the meeting is probably necessary.  This may be easier said than done, especially especially for byelections where the nomination happens very quickly.  Personally, if I were running for a nomination I would make sure I was crystal clear on who was eligible to vote.  And I'd do what I could to review the listing of members present before things came to a vote.

I imagine I would likely only run for a nomination within my riding association, and likely only if I trusted that the riding association was organized and open enough to do things properly.

Practically, this could mean that Chhabra or others interested in accountability in nominations could create & freely distribute a package for interested candidates, going over what they need to know.  I find often the focus in this kind of situation is putting pressure on the party to do something.  I feel this is wrong headed.  It's not because I'm sensitive and can't hear to criticism of the party-- in fact I understand the party is large, bureaucratic, and slow.  If you want things done right better do them yourself.  What could the party do?  They could form a committee to put together a package and then run an awareness/education campaign to make sure that the rules are known unambiguously.  Or, a few interested people can just research the rules and put the package out on a simple web site.

What else could be done as part of the route of appeal? Sounds like making a stink about it at the meeting and refusing to back down goes a long way.  What can be done tomorrow or next week will never be as strong as ensuring that the objection is abundantly registered at the meeting itself.

Beyond that, I don't know.

I think when this kind of thing happens it's very difficult to appeal.  That's the nature of voting.  It's difficult to have an expert knowledge of the rules, and to be successful I think the appealing candidate would need to be highly articulate, charismatic, and have an organized group of supporters (and probably at least some connections within the party).

For a candidate who could not get 14 local members to support them at a meeting, it would be challenging indeed.

ygtbk

Maysie wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
  it has zero to do with him being "a white person who pees standing up". Its that he is a well-known person who has a lengthy resume who could be considered a "household name" - compared to someone who is a complete unknown.

Actually, being a white man is precisely why he has a lengthy resume and is a household name. This is how systemic sexism works. It's real.

I'm pretty sure this comment won't get through, given the decidedly biased and eccentric moderation at babble, but is Maysie's comment not both racist and sexist? If not why not? She's beating up on someone for being a white guy.

And my personal belief is that if the only way to make a point is to use the word "systemic" then the point is not corroborated. It's just lazy - I assert that there's a buncha racism (or sexism) even though I cannot specify anyone who is an actual racist (or sexist)- it's in the air, or something.

Pages