babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Brigette DePape for prime minister (3)
June 26, 2011 - 3:10pm
It's not over. It has just begun.
VIDEO: Brigette DePape joins demonstrators to mark G20 anniversary
Power to the people!
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?
.
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.
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.
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
People who try to equate 'Parliament' with 'Democracy' are going to HAVE to be contradictory.
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.
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.
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.
Is what you mean by "more" what you are asking in your 2nd question, as below? If not what do you mean by more?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
@ 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?
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
@ 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?
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.