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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Boom Boom at the rate the NDP as going right now, they will screw it up a lot.
This is basic communications and messaging and it has been a mess up for over a year.
And the Muskrat Falls thing - has Mulcair thrown the Innu under the bus? I need to know, because I live in the middle of two large Innu communities here on the Quebec coast, and my NDP MP is Innu.
I haven't seen anything recently from Mulcair on Quebec's Plan Nord, by the way. Or on the Romaine River Hydro Project, which the Innu oppose.
Call your MPs office BB- they can tell you.
Here's my guess- they'll say that Muskrat Falls is contingent on settling with the Innu.
Mulcair and the caucus are going to make some decisions that some of us don't like.
Moving to government puts the NDP in this position.
To downgrade our movement because some decisions are not 100% pure is unfair and unwise.
What counts is where we have to conceed and where we have to never surrender.
Harper and his brain trust acheived his evil vision by gradually winning over middle canadians and then moving forwward with his basic underlying right wing agenda. We must make the compromises in order for us to maintain and progress on many other fronts.
My family are kayakers and i hate the concept of any river being damned, rerouted or screwed around with. But Canadians will never vote for a party or leader which seems unable to make some very difficult decisions even those that hurt some of it's traditional base. But trust me, power will be worth it, if it sends most of this Con group out to pasture. Getting some NDP JUDGES, supreme court nominees, putting a few Cons in their new prisons for election fraud and corruption.
We should all continue to push for every one of these issues. But remember Canadians will reward us for this strategy in the face of a uncompromising con majority. Mulcair is taking THE BATTLE into the sections of society that never voted for us. Let's give him the room to maneuver and judge what he does when we have power.
i would consider a Mulcair Government with the cabinet he would have to be a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT.
think about it - their strategy right now is about defunding or muting those progressive voices.
Life anyone has "thrown the Innu under a bus" it's the current Tory MP for Labrador Peter Penashue who is leader of the Innu and won his seat largely thanks to almost unanimous support from the Innu community!
Yeah, Stock, and I note Mulcair has taken a shot at him. But two wrongs don't make a right. Where in any of these two articles on Muskrat Falls does Mulcair make any mention of negotiating with the Innu? Maybe I need new glasses, my eyesight isn't what it was.
ps: I've already raised this with my MP, but I'm keeping our conversation private.
Unless I'm mistaken BB, everyone- even the governments of Canada and NL- acknowledges that negotiations with the Innu have to be completed before the project could proceed.
The Innu would understandably not be happy that their negotiations do not come first, but that does not mean they are being ignore. Even less that, thee steam roller will proceed without them.
Even with[if] land claims settled.... there are a LOT of issues with Muskrat Falls, on which it cab fail. So it is no surprise that politicains- Mulcair included- address those. Most of them after all have nothing to do with aboriginal negotiations.
And you dont have to be secretive about what your MP says. You can make comments of your own without referring to or even implying they come in part from what he or she said.
I agree with all of the points you made, but the NDP is the party with a social and environmental conscience, and I don't see any reference by Mulcair to having had any discussions with the Innu in that article where he came out in full support of the Muskrat Falls project.
Maybe he did and it wasn't reported. I'm corresponding with my MP on this matter.
I take your point, but I think we should avoid words like "pure" here. I've seen it thrown in the faces of critics of Obama, as though they were lily-white, naive lambs who don't understand the real world, when their bottom line is not so much that the president do good as that he not make things worse.
It's a tired metaphor, but New Democrats understand mixing some water in with the wine. Most of us, though, won't take water and call it wine. I don't believe Mulcair is expecting that of us, but I think the membership needs to always keep a watch on the leadership's direction. And that's been the case for every leader.
Crossposted- but I think you are going off half cocked BB.
Like other environmentalists in Nova Scotia who would be expected to like the green power coming here- I do not think Muskrat Falls should happen.
But I do not beleive the Innu have said definiteively they do not want it. They have said they want their rights acknowedged and settled.
So it is not as if Mulcair is saying the NDP supports it, and even implicitly- who care what the Innu think.
Like.
But I have to say, I dont know about that "most of us"...
Maybe revise to say we should not be asked to take water and call it wine.
In the meantime, I have these two pages still in front of me, and wondering if there's a piece of the puzzle that I'm not seeing:
Quebec Innu want to stop Muskrat Falls hydro
Mulcair says NDP's Quebec caucus fully behind Muskrat Falls
I'd be grateful if someone can sort this out for me and I can put this matter to rest.
You'll notice it says Quebec Innu oppose project.
I do not know what is said by the Labrador Innu who the NL government is negotiating with [or supposed to negotiate with].... but no land in Quebec will be flooded, so the Quebec Innu would have no status in negotiations. That doesn't make them chopped meat, but it is a relevant fact pertinent to how you are presenting the question.
And you're welcome.
After all, someone around here has to defend Mulcair from the sore losers.
But Ken, it impacts traditional Innu hunting territory - Innu move back and forth between borders. There should be some sensitivity to this, not just legalese.
I think this probably new territory for the NDP in Quebec, the party will have had experience on aboriginal issues elsewhere, but it looks to me like the Quebec NDP have a steep learning curve ahead.
I'm not just saying legalese Boom Boom.
But YOU have been saying THE Innu, as if they all speak with one voice, and they are being rolled over.
It is not laudable if the Quebec Innu are just being ignored, but the Quebec Innu in particular being ignored is not the same thing as what you have been suggesting.
Okay, I'll think on that for a while.
And as far as the 'legalese' goes... you cant have it both ways.
Aboriginals negotiate as soverign nations. And those legal entitities and the power they hold are not the same as cultural-linguistic entities. They only MIGHT be the same. As is always true with sovereign nations, there is an all or nothing territorial line drawn somewhere.
In this case, one defined aboriginal peoples has jurisdiction over the land that may be flooded- not all Innu people. There are both practical powers and limitations that go with that internationaly accepted practice of sovereignty.
http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120516/UN-Right-to-Foo...
Tom Mulcair and the Tar Messengers
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/16/tom-mulcair-and-the-tar-messengers/
Should we be getting worried about this?
Isn't Paul Wells known as a big Harper fan?
I find Wells reasonable enough, though I can't really pin him down politically.
Is it wise to get into a spat with the Premiers, if it's avaoidable? No.
But, is it avoidable? Probably not, especially if one considers the political landscape where in these Premiers are all Harper allies, or at least in Redford's case while they may have somewhat of a personal antipathy towards each other based on political competition they have a common interest in promoting the oil sands, which overrides the former concern.
Additionally, I find this very annoying "The West" complex tiresome as it really means certain narrow interests within Alberta and even more marginal interests within BC and Saskatchewan that take their cues from Calgary. These types of people will always be in favour of a somewhat radical position within confederation, even a so-called moderate like Redford who promises to "work with" (or something) the rest of the country. So, I've gotta ask who really cares what they have to say on this matter? In so far as they're always going to complain and accuse you of "attacking" them if you don't become one of their puppet regiemes or sacrifice your interests to meet theirs, like Brad Wall's Saskatchewan or Christy Clark's BC you can't win if you play their game by their rules. So why bother? If Mulcair were to take some people's advice on this matter he'd look just as weak, ineffective and pathetic as Dion and Ignatieff.
Besides, one of the puppet regiemes will be falling soon anyways. Clark's bizzare attempt to advocate for Redford's pro-oil position will do nothing to save her doomed re-election prospects. In fact, I'd say they'd weaken them even more. Though I'm sure she thinks it might save a seat or two from going NDP or Conservative in the next provincial election and keep the Liberals relevant.
It looks like there is a coordinated series of propaganda pieces agains the NDP today.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/
It is possible the Cons will attack the NDP and Mulcair by proxy for a while before coming on directly.
We just have to keep doing what we are doing. Mulcair has opened a national debate about resources and the eocnomy. We could not have asked for a better start. Let the Big Oil henchmen take their shots, they are finished. They wont be able to do to Mulcair what they did to Dion because people are sick of Harper and his band of crooks.
Its amusing to see all these Tory pundits claiming that Mulcair is being "divisive" for daring to be anything less than a cheerleader for the oil sands. Harper sets the standard for divisiveness with his attacks on Quebec, his francophobia, his dismissal of Atlantic Canada for having a "culture of entitlement", his labelling of anyone who disagrees with him as an "enemy of Canada" etc...
I like your enthusiasm, but I think if the NDP or Mulcair waffles on this (like some appear to be councilling) they will easily be able to do what they did to Dion and Ignatieff. Either that or if the NDP or Mulcair focuses on irrelevancies and decides to shy away from real issues like this.
Thats why it is so important for all NDPers to spread the message of sustainable development and repel the Tory attacks to give Mulcair and the NDP confidence to stand for these positions
this post and your 1st 'bout this IMV are on the money.
Quebec Innu are going on public record and looking for a judicial statement for a reason 'bout their hunting those lands proposed to be flooded in Labrador.
from the Quebec Innu against link
According to the panel, "the project would be unlikely to deliver benefits to aboriginal communities in Quebec and the project's impact on their current use of land and resources for traditional purposes would be adverse."
they're looking for a legal seat at the table. as it should be. i would bet the NL Innu are on board for the Quebec Innu getting legal statements of their right to have recompense for having lost use of it. they don't have to follow white man's borders is what they believe and want to prove it legally. we should be in support of them both in the ND's.