Not Your NDP Candidate

Now that the messaage has been sent loud and clear that Anti-Zionists are persona non grata in the NDP (yay!) maybe they can go try and ilfiltrate the Green party instead!

Stockholm wrote:

Now that the messaage has been sent loud and clear that Anti-Zionists are persona non grata in the NDP (yay!) maybe they can go try and ilfiltrate the Green party instead!

How do you get that he was an Anti-zionist or that this was some crazy conspriacy to infiltrate the NDP, especially given that his father was once himself an NDP candidate?

Most Canadians don't know what a Zionist is, nor do they really care. But rejection of candidates over stuff like this, especially when National Office has not offered any sort of explanation, really leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, frustrates people, and does not reflect well on the party itself. It's especially hypocritical for the NDP to complain about the Liberals and Conservatives packing nominations for their parties when the executive is happy to do the same thing when it's convenient.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-blocks-paul-manly-son-of-former-mp-f... now the Press has picked up on this.[/url] And yes, I know the CBC is not partial to the NDP, but in this case, the CBC didn't make the NDP block this guy from running.

Stockholm wrote:

Now is the time to get rid of potentially embarrassing candidates - NOT during an election campaign - and what better time to have bad news stories than during a sleepy Canada Day weekend when no one is paying attention.

In other words, you have blind faith in the party vetting structures, and anyone who was rejected should have been? Do you have any actual evidence based in fact to suggest that this man would have caused problems with his candidacy?

"Manly's rejection by the party should not come entirely as a surprise, as it may be the result of a new vetting process put in place by Jack Layton after the 2008 campaign that has continued under Tom Mulcair."

Maybe the Ottawa overseers agree with this assessment of Jim Manley.  It seems most days that the Mulcair backroom operators are playing to the National Post audience.

Quote:

So let’s recap: A 79-year-old decides on his own accord to join a group that aims to benefit the interests of a terrorist organization accused of brutalizing its own people. He does this by sitting on a boat, which is stopped and taken to a port in the region’s only democratic country, where all indications are that he is treated well. His family, which didn’t talk him out of the trip and has no indication that Manly is receiving anything but civilized treatment, demands his immediate release and offers its sympathy to the terrorist-run enclave rather than the democratic state, suggesting Israel might abuse Manly, brainwash him, force him to sign false statements or otherwise brutalize him. There is no evidence to support any of this outside an apparent ill-informed bias against Israel and in favour of its enemies.

And they wonder why no one — not even from the NDP — wants to offer support?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/22/if-former-mp-jim-manley-n...

ETA:  I love the reference to the regions only democratic country.  Poor Turkey they try so hard to pretend they are a democracy but fail miserably in comparison to the religious based political system in Israel.

Its politics. 

Thank you.

Does anyone know what is the Liberal's policy on Israel? I've been trying hard to find Trudeau's position but it seems like, as usual, he doesn't have one.

Well, it is important to make the point that the liberals or even the Green are no more progressive on this issue.

Everytime we critize Mulcair NDP, I will make a point that the liberals and green are no better and they are not alternative to the NDP. I believe anyone who supports progressive stance on Israel needs to make that clear. I don't belive in unfairly blaming one party and than letting other parties take advantage of this issue when they are no better or even worse.

Debater wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

Does anyone know what is the Liberal's policy on Israel? I've been trying hard to find Trudeau's position but it seems like, as usual, he doesn't have one.

Another casual dig at Trudeau.  But it doesn't match up with the evidence of the past year.

Trudeau has actually been much bolder & more decisive than Mulcair on a whole series of issues over the last year.  Marijuana.  Senate.  Quebec Charter of Values.  Abortion.  Free Trade.

Israel is a complicated hot potato for all the parties, particuarly since Harper has become its biggest Canadian fan.  The Liberal Party has the same position it always has - it supports the right for Israel to exist as a free & democratic society in the Middle East but it also supports a balanced & peaceful process at finding a settlement solution for the Palestinians.

Huh?
Gee isn't that the same position as Netanyahu claims to hold.

Critics of Israel's treatment of Palestinians aren't necessarily "anti-Zionists", and so what if they are?

I think some are trying to conflate "anti-Zionist" with "anti-Semite". The latter have no place in any progressive party, or any that pretend to be somewhat decent or democratic.

As for Trudeau's forthright stance on the charter of values, that is because he is against Québec's right to exist, not because he is any splendid democrat. And he likes the type of politics involving "ethnics" dressed up in "national garb", which makes many progressive peope from "ethnic" communities want to throw up.

Left Turn wrote:

Paul Manly, son of former NDP MP Jim Manly, has been blocked by the NDP federal office from running for the nomination in the riding of Nanaimo--Ladysmith, despite being ok'd by the local riding association. This is in response to comments he made in defense of international law and human rights, after his Dad Jim Manley was arrested by Israel while onboard the Canadian Boat to Gaza in 2012. I'm not really surprised that this happened, given the ongoing political degeneration of the NDP, but I don't condone it either.

I've given this it's own thread so it won't get ignored as it very well might if I posted it in one of the existing threads.

Quote:

I have done nothing illegal or immoral, nothing that I am embarrassed about or which breaks the NDP constitution. The reason my candidacy is being blocked is political.

I have not received a written reason for this refusal and was told I will not receive a written reason. I was told verbally on the phone, that the reason was in relation to “what I said and did when my father was in Israel.” There was also concern that I was running to make Israel and Palestine an election issue.

[url=http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=29e03b47f577476c86f682cfc&id=aaa06bf... Your NDP Candidate[/url]

What a freaking disgrace.  The NDP has become a joke.  More like the Liberals with every passing day.

The most offensive part of this story so far - to my mind - is that Paul Manly was denied the right to run without being given a specifc reason.

Mr. Manly says his candidacy was "not approved" by Ann McGrath, and that the federal NDP executive (whoever they are - secret body?) "will not let me stand as a candidate".

Has anyone asked them to explain their actions? Or does everyone concede that that would be a pointless exercise?

When MP Bev Desjarlais voted against same-sex marriage in 2005, the NDP leadership allowed her to remain in caucus. When the election was called later that year, the NDP leadership did not prevent her from running for the nomination. It was the rank-and-file membership that put her where she belonged.

I think the contrast in these two cases says everything we need to know about the NDP. And the Liberals, of course, would have acted in exactly the same manner, so how does that diversionary discussion enter into this thread?

ETA: Oh, and josh, there are better ways to deal with baiting and provocation than by responding to it.

See what I mean, josh?

[url=http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Fingas+Regina+nominations+right+example/9... Fingas, in the Regina Leader-Post[/url]

Quote:

The only explanation for Manly's rejection arose from a week's worth of criticism of the federal NDP in 2012. At that time, Manly's father (himself a former NDP MP) was being detained without contact after participating in a relief mission to Gaza. Manly had questioned both whether the federal government was doing anything at all to ensure his father's safe return, and whether the federal NDP had been too "cautious" in speaking up about the detention.

Now, it's questionable whether a single instance of past public disappointment with a party should ever be considered a reasonable basis for rejecting a candidate. In fact, a standard of "no past public criticism of one's party ever" seems sure to turn away anybody who has spoken up on any issue other than as a party cheerleader - limiting the pool of candidates either to people who have refused to serve as public advocates for their principles, or those who don't hold any principles strongly enough to speak up in their defence.

My emphasis - and that certainly sounds like the plan.

Thanks for sharing that, shartal.

What do you think of Paul Manly being barred from running? Although, given the refusal of the NDP Overlords to comment, we're necessarily doing a lot of speculating here.

Just sent the following via the "Contact the NDP" site, as well as to Thomas Mulcair, Pat Martin, and Nikki Ashton:

Quote:

I was very concerned to hear that Paul Manly's candidacy for the NDP was rejected before he had a chance to present his case to the local constituency association. He says the reason has to do with what he wrote on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the actual explanations as offered by the NDP shed little clarity on the situation. This is exactly the kind of thing that goes on in the Liberal and Conservative parties, where the party executive picks and chooses the suitable candidates, at least this is how it looks to a non-partisan voter. In other words, despite the party's protestations to the contrary, the NDP looks just as bad as the other 2 parties on this matter. I understand that sometimes the party may need to intervene to prevent one candidate from destroying the hard work of many in the party. But this process needs to be transparent and have confidence (ideally the riding associations, provincial council, and the membership would have a role in designing this process), but unfortunately this decision has none of these characteristics. It represents to me a disturbing trend that the membership of the NDP seems to have progressively less influence over party affairs. I understand that the NDP is targeting specific demographics rather than trying to win over the votes of the population at large. Unfortunately for the NDP, the "natural base" of the NDP tends to be people who are disillusioned and frustrated with what's going on around them. Not only are these people by definition hard to motivate in the first place, but they are very likely to be frustrated by these kinds of actions of the NDP and will not participate in the process, including in key battleground ridings where such things can make the difference in electing NDP MPs. I have actually let my participation in the NDP in my home province, Manitoba, lapse over this very problem, because I have long felt that my main role as a member is to contribute money and free labour at election times and at all other times to be a cheerleader for the party leadership. I may very well withhold my vote from the NDP in the next federal election (and by extension, also withhold volunteering and donations) without assurances that the NDP respects its members. I hope moving forward the NDP can learn from this case to improve process by which candidates are selected.

Stockholm wrote:

Now is the time to get rid of potentially embarrassing candidates - NOT during an election campaign - and what better time to have bad news stories than during a sleepy Canada Day weekend when no one is paying attention.

Stockholm, I've noticed that you almost always seem to be a defender of the NDP leadership & its decisions, regardless of whether or not they are democratic or acceptable.  You seem to very much be a defender of the establishment.

Part of being on the left means being anti-establishment, and I don't detect much of that from you.  You also defended the ONDP's decision to allow Adam Giambrone to manipulate the NDP nomination process in Scarborough-Guildwood last year, despite the fact that it ended up seriously damaging the NDP in that riding.

On the related issues of candidates overall, how come the NDP is behind the Conservatives & Liberals in terms of candidate selection for 2015 anyway?  A number of reporters like Tim Harper & Kady O'Malley have commented on this lately.  I would have thought the NDP would be farther ahead by now, but it seems like they are letting the other parties get a head start.  The CPC & LPC already have quite a few candidates nominated who are already getting their campaigns set up for next year and going out to meet voters in their ridings.  It surprises me that someone with Mulcair's experience seems to be having trouble getting his party nomination process under way for next year.

Debater wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Now is the time to get rid of potentially embarrassing candidates - NOT during an election campaign - and what better time to have bad news stories than during a sleepy Canada Day weekend when no one is paying attention.

Stockholm, I've noticed that you almost always seem to be a defender of the NDP leadership & its decisions, regardless of whether or not they are democratic or acceptable.  You seem to very much be a defender of the establishment.

Part of being on the left means being anti-establishment, and I don't detect much of that from you.  You also defended the ONDP's decision to allow Adam Giambrone to manipulate the NDP nomination process in Scarborough-Guildwood last year, despite the fact that it ended up seriously damaging the NDP in that riding.

Can you even hear yourself? If anything, the Liberals are the establishment. They're the ones that have always been in power in the past, and have been the natural opposition to the PCs/Cons for who knows how long. The NDP is the party that really wants to fight the establishment. They're the OO right now, but it's the first time in history. 

Principled positions on human rights abuse and the sanctity of international law are boilerplate stands where the NDP is well protected from criticism on an electoral front, except in the dark corners of the extreme right, which is never going to vote for the NDP anyway. There is nothing in this guys statements that are particularly offensive to Israel or Israelis. On the face of it there is no reason for this candidacy not to go forward.

And it is exactly that process which has left a lot of people thinking that the reason that Dianna Andrews was barred from running in Etobicoke North is because she was a Lesbian woman of colour.

Surely, there should be some way of creating a process whereby at least the riding association executive and members are privy to the facts of the decision making process that results in the interference in their internal electoral process.

It's like this: If you are going to be a "poor people's" party that compensates for its lack or resources by capitalizing on the labour and efforts of the base of the party, you have to exchange that for a certain amount of ownership over the product.

No, transparency is dangerous. Confidentiality and privacy is good. Maybe Paul Manly was in arrears on his income tax! That's how Mulcair turfed Tyrone Benskin from his critic's position, right? Or maybe he was a child molester... Or smoked dope. Best if we don't know. We can't handle the truth.

The NDP Byzantine hierarchy should seriously be challenged by its members. But it isn't.