Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
The applicants who don't want to sign aren't the ones claiming that words in a form mean something other than what they clearly say.
Speaking of misinformation and distortions. And playing politics.
The form clearly says "mandate," but they paraphrase it as "mandate AND BELIEFS." They know they are lying, and without fear of God.
Attest means swear.
And you are right; "respect" does have a slightly different meaning in that it implies they are disrespectful, rather than just respecting a different standard. Seems to me that makes it worse.
But the bottom line is no different, so I don't see your point. Really the greater issue is the government's claim that it doesn't mean that at all, and is really just about actions, not tenets of belief. That's what a mandate is in this context - a creed.
"Attest" is a secular term. "Swear" is more of a religious term.
"Respect" does not go as far as "support." You can respect a law/requirement without supporting it. There are no definitions of "mandate" which means personal beliefs. Mandate is your intention/authorization to ACT, your ACTION plan. You are entitled to your beliefs, but as for actions, not all actions are eligible for government funding.
They are being asked to state their mandate in question 10.But you seemed to think this was somehow nebulous and difficult.
Is the problem that you think they're being asked the same question twice (!!!) or is the problem that:
they are asking an organization to make a value judgment about itself, and which of its activities are primary. Or else have someone else do it. Under penalty of law.If they can't answer the question twice, how will they answer it once?
The second. The government should be able to determine from the answer to first question the answer to the second.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
The applicants who don't want to sign aren't the ones claiming that words in a form mean something other than what they clearly say.
Speaking of misinformation and distortions. And playing politics.
The form clearly says "mandate," but they paraphrase it as "mandate AND BELIEFS." They know they are lying, and without fear of God.
They state their mandate in question 10. Obviously the other question means more than simply mandate.
"Core mandate" is far more foundational than an action plan, especially if the organization is a church (though some municipal organizations have had a problem with it too).
In this case the document is asking them so swear respect for something which some of them consider murder. Regardless of whether the government says it doesn't mean that. That is a perfectly understandable interpretation of what it says.
It isn't actually on these organizations to fix this and allow funding for these projects which don't involve opposition to abortion. It is on the government, and clearly they are more interested in hubris than fixing an admitted problem.
They state their mandate in question 10. Obviously the other question means more than simply mandate.
Neither Question 10 nor the Attestation deals with beliefs. Words mean what they say. If the term `beliefs` is NOT on the application, then it means the government is not concerned with your beliefs. But I suppose you can misinterpret any document, if you have reasons to do so....
"Attest", not "swear."
"Respects" Charter Rights, not "Supports" Charter Rights.
Those are slight, but meaningful differences.
Like "mandate" vs. "personal beliefs".
"Core mandate" is far more foundational than an action plan, especially if the organization is a church (though some municipal organizations have had a problem with it too).
In this case the document is asking them so swear respect for something which some of them consider murder. Regardless of whether the government says it doesn't mean that. That is a perfectly understandable interpretation of what it says.
It isn't actually on these organizations to fix this and allow funding for these projects which don't involve opposition to abortion. It is on the government, and clearly they are more interested in hubris than fixing an admitted problem.
As I stated in the other thread, I would have prefered to use the term `primary activities` instead of mandate, because the term is not very commonly used, and is open to intentional misinterpretation by the right. But will the term `mandate`stand in any court room - absolutely.
As for religious mandate, read any mission statement by a church. I don`t see anything there about outlawing abortions. Only activist groups such as Campaign Life Coalition would be declined if the application requirement is properly applied.
The second. The government should be able to determine from the answer to first question the answer to the second.
That makes it sound like your sole protest is that this was a poorly designed form, that asks your address in field #4, then asks you where you primarily reside in field #17.
In this case the document is asking them so swear respect for something which some of them consider murder.
But only if they want money.
Do you think they could survive without extra funding, if fighting that "murder" tooth and nail is how they understand their mandate?
They state their mandate in question 10. Obviously the other question means more than simply mandate.
Neither Question 10 nor the Attestation deals with beliefs. Words mean what they say. If the term `beliefs` is NOT on the application, then it means the government is not concerned with your beliefs. But I suppose you can misinterpret any document, if you have reasons to do so....
So if they demonstrate outside an abortion clinic would they not be entitled to the funding?
The second. The government should be able to determine from the answer to first question the answer to the second.That makes it sound like your sole protest is that this was a poorly designed form, that asks your address in field #4, then asks you where you primarily reside in field #17.
In this case the document is asking them so swear respect for something which some of them consider murder.But only if they want money.
Do you think they could survive without extra funding, if fighting that "murder" tooth and nail is how they understand their mandate?
If it was simply a poorly designed form, that would be one thing. Buy they’re obviously looking for something more than mandate. If it was just redundant, there wouldn’t be this uproar.
So if they do demonstrate outside an abortion clinic we can just demand it back?
Surely they, alone, must have some idea of whether they do or do not intend to demonstrate outside of abortion clinics. So, the government does them the respect of just asking whether that's in their day planner.
So if they do demonstrate outside an abortion clinic we can just demand it back?
Surely they, alone, must have some idea of whether they do or do not intend to demonstrate outside of abortion clinics. So, the government does them the respect of just asking whether that's in their day planner.
That’s not what it’s asking.
That's exactly what it's asking. And they're not even demanding some long-winded essay, just a checkbox.
Please. This is absolutely not about "beliefs", it's about intentions. And any organization who has no idea what their intentions are after receiving public money has no reasonable reason to expect that public money.
They are asking whether they plan on demonstrating outside abortion clinics? Must have missed that. And what if such demonstrations are not the “core mandate” or “primary activity” of the organization, but only tangential or secondary to its mission?
They are asking whether they plan on demonstrating outside abortion clinics? Must have missed that. And what if such demonstrations are not the “core mandate” or “primary activity” of the organization, but only tangential or secondary to its mission?
Just like with any government application, it will be up to the government employees to adjudicate the application. If the organization disagrees, they can appeal to the Minister/PM, or even sue. Some activist organizations already have, and their injuction requests were declined by the courts so far.
As I stated in the other thread, I would have prefered to use the term `primary activities` instead of mandate, because the term is not very commonly used, and is open to intentional misinterpretation by the right. But will the term `mandate`stand in any court room - absolutely.
\
I'm glad to see you agree it isn't correctly worded. So why are you insisting those who also object sign it, rather than have the government do the sensible thing and let them not sign and deal with it case by case?
And this isn't Perry Mason; this has nothing to do with any court. It's not even a term that makes proper sense.
No one adjudicated anything. They sent the forms back.
I'm glad to see you agree it isn't correctly worded. So why are you insisting those who also object sign it, rather than have the government do the sensible thing and let them not sign and deal with it case by case?And this isn't Perry Mason; this has nothing to do with any court. It's not even a term that makes proper sense.
No one adjudicated anything. They sent the forms back.
I'm saying the form is not perfectly worded from a political communications perspective, but it is sufficiently clear from a legal perspective. A case is already before the courts. So far a court rejected an anti-abortion group's injuction request, due to lack of evidence provided.
The form should be sent back if the application is incomplete.
If an actual charitable organization can't sign the form, clearly they are more interested in political games than in helping the needy.
Some organizations do use charity as a recruitment/promotional tool.
FTR. "Viewpoint discrimination" is an Americanism and is uniquely related to the First Amendment. The term does not appear in a single Supreme Court decision, and has no salience in Canadian law.
That much is true. However, the situation at hand deals with funding certain organizational activities, and not with belief policing. The latter would still be unacceptable to most Canadians.
God, we are just going to keep dancing around this, aren't we. It isn't about activities, it is about "core mandate", which really can only be interpreted as principles.
It is about belief policing. But worse - people in need of services are going to suffer, because the forms didn't get accepted.
And then there is the actual topic of this thread, which is why the NDP went from condemning that ham-handed action on the part of the Liberals, to a complete reversal, to a whipped vote, to removing a well-respected member who objected on a point of principle?
That seems a far greater series of mis-steps than even the Liberals made over the forms.
Like I said , I excpect they are going to pay for it at the ballot box.
If you really meant expel from caucus, that's correct.
brookmere - with all due respect - show me where the Leader has the power to expel someone from caucus. If I've missed it, I apologize. I believe in the rule of law, and I am deeply suspicious both of rule by individuals and sheep-like allegiance to individuals.
Show me, please.
6079_Smith_W, you should really look up the definition of a mandate. Take a hint: it's not beliefs, nor principles. When it comes to funding/financing, no one cares about your principles. We need to know about your activities.
However - the question of how Christopherson was turfed, the role of the Leader, and the unquestioning obedience of the members, remains to be addressed.
There is no question. Removal of a critic role is solely the decision of the leader.
Why would you even think otherwise is kind of Mystifying.
I don't "think otherwise" at all. I asked where one can find this power of the Leader. It's not in the party constitution. Is there a rule of the House to that effect? The reason I'm repeating myself is that no one here answers. The only "answers" I got are along the lines of: "Well, Layton booted Desjarlais, and no one complained." OR "Well, if the Leader can't pick their own front-line attack dogs, what can they do?"
Those aren't answers.
What's mystifying to me is how someone can accept decision-making by an individual without accountability - and not even be able to point to a rule or decision which says, "yeah, seems strange, but that's how it is."
So if you have some actual information to help de-mystify this - please provide. I'm all ears.
And folks (especially Smith) - this thread is about the turfing of Christopherson - there's another thread where the "substantive" issue was discussed, and I could have sworn I heard someone say we shouldn't re-debate it here. So let's discuss the turfing of Christopherson. Or not. Whatever you want.
Especially me, Unionist?
I have been pointing out from the start that there is another thread dealing with that subject, warning about not re-arguing it here, and in my last post tried again to bring this back on topic.
But if that is where everyone seems to want to go that is where the thread is going.
You yourself insisted on bringing that form in here for examination. Well you got your wish. If you want to point fingers, perhaps you should remember that.
(edit)
Actually I checked. You asked. I warned. You asked again for the full application.
Please, don't we have enough of a mess here without adding another meta level of whose fault it is? It's a mess. How about we try and steer it back ? I'm sure there's still plenty to disagree on there.
This is making me recall years ago repeatedly asking how it was exactly that Jack Layton reversed the NDP position on Canada in NATO. What was the process? Was there a vote? Who made this decision? It used to be this place was stuffed with NDP know-it-alls boasting contantly about NDP arcana - what they knew and who they talked to 'at Convention' etc. But nobody could ever explain the exact process of changing such an important plank in NDP policy to support Canada in NATO. "We're going to change it from within,' said Layton.
Do you not have a problem belonging to or supporting a party in which such things can happen without knowing how? Or who? Or why?
Especially me, Unionist?
I have been pointing out from the start that there is another thread dealing with that subject, warning about not re-arguing it here, and in my last post tried again to bring this back on topic.
But if that is where everyone seems to want to go that is where the thread is going.
You yourself insisted on bringing that form in here for examination. Well you got your wish. If you want to point fingers, perhaps you should remember that.
(edit)
Actually I checked. You asked. I warned. You asked again for the full application.
Please, don't we have enough of a mess here without adding another meta level of whose fault it is? It's a mess. How about we try and steer it back ? I'm sure there's still plenty to disagree on there.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that at all. I said "especially Smith" because of precisely what you said - you reminded everyone of the previous thread and said it made no sense to duplicate that whole discussion here. I didn't in the slightest intend to say that you were the guilty party. I wanted folks to "listen up" and to ensure that you didn't miss the post! Sorry! Ah, the agony of textual linear communication.
And yes, I asked for application form, because I wanted to see it. For my reference. Not debate it. I may have slipped up in one post where I found the "clarification", but I was just trying to get the discussion back on track.
Finally - I really really am interested in the question of who turfed Christopherson (I want a source), and by what authority, and what reason was given publicly if any. I have not seen those answers here. Nor have I heard much comment (except one or two) about what powers babblers believe the Leader should have (because under the constitution, s/he has next to none). But I've seen a great deal of misunderstanding among babblers about what the powers of the Leader are. It reflects the misunderstanding among party members as well. And the media.
Haha ... Sorry Unionist.
To be honest it has been kind of on my mind that I have been a bit stupid myself to be feeding into this, well, stupidity. So thanks for the reminder, and sorry for the misunderstanding.
On that last question, I get that it is a serious question. But ultimately this is something they need to get their shit together on. In the first place I think the demotion itself was a really unwise move no matter who did it. And that they have MPs openly saying so really doesn't help. I don't think another crack of the whip is the right response on their part.
And NDPP I am less concerned about those decisions being in camera (caucus meetings are closed after all) than that they are made. Yes, I have seen the party made decisions I disagree with at the provincial and federal level. My response is to try to change those decisions.
They are asking whether they plan on demonstrating outside abortion clinics? Must have missed that. And what if such demonstrations are not the “core mandate” or “primary activity” of the organization, but only tangential or secondary to its mission?
Just like with any government application, it will be up to the government employees to adjudicate the application. If the organization disagrees, they can appeal to the Minister/PM, or even sue. Some activist organizations already have, and their injuction requests were declined by the courts so far.
That investigation can be done independent of the application question. The question does nothing but make the applicant potentially legally liable based on whether or not it believes its “primary activity” does not violate reproductive rights, etc.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. If the organization believes they are providing true information, they will be fine. We haven't heard of any such organizations being charged with providing false information on a government app. If that ever happends, the courts will apply the "reasonable person" test.
I think this thread is demonstrating that there is more than one interpretation for the requirement which means that opinions including those of MPs could legitimately be divergent.
In terms of the woridng there are two issues: First the word respect which is a very odd word in legal terms becuase it speaks to feelings such as admiration, which is part of the more common definition. The directive could have spoken to behaviour by using a word like comply. Or, even, prevention of exposure of the hired person to a certain opinion or belief. Instead, the directive asks that the core manadate hold this respect. Arguably, a mandate cannot respect anything only the individuals can as that is about thought. The choice to use a word more associated with feeling than behaviour is a key issue. Even if you wish to debate this, you are going to run into valid opinions about the word respect since this interpretation I am making here is part of common language.
The second issue is about the words for the mandate itself. It requires definitions, where none may have been considered previously: how would you know if a core manadate holds some kind of affirmation of resepct? Many already have mandates of compliance with all laws. I would argue that the word respect was used becuase compliance was considered not enough. When compliance is not enough legally, you are in a different area of regulation that involves considerable interpretation.
This is broad enough to exclude organizations that are heavily involved in providing social supports to Canadians. Do the Liberals think that the Catholic Church will reform due to this? Do they think they can win this? On the face of it, since Women cannot become priests, I would argue that no Catholic organization would legally be allowed to participate in the program. I am not a fan of religioun, however, I am not convinced that this battle in this way is appropriate, especially at a time when social service delivery comes form the volunteer sector. It is important to note that significant money is donated that helps Canadians socially through religious organizations, no matter whether you like them or not.
There is another issue here and that is effectiveness. This requirement, that certainly does not clearly speak exclusively to behaviour and compliance, but issues like mandate of an entire organization and respect is different from most law. Here is a legal definition of respect in law:
"Let me define what I mean by “respect for the law.” This is not merely the adherence to the letter of the law or even to the spirit of the law. That we all must do and thus that is a given. However, merely complying with the law is not the same as respecting the law. Respect for the law of course includes complying with the law but respect for the law goes beyond that threshold. Complying with the law does not of necessity include respecting the law but respecting the law does include complying with the law.
In its simplest incarnation, the difference can be summarized as follows: “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
Respect for the law is not merely not doing something negative but is actually doing something positive. Respect for the law is behaving in such a way that you act affirmatively to manifest a respect the law. Respect means acting with deference and esteem, even awe for the law, and with a sense that the law has value over and above the immediacy of the application of the law in a given situation. "
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/respect.html
It is a value to respect the law. There is also a value to respect human rights as well as comply with legislation to protect them. No matter how much you respect human rights, however, you could hold the opinion that this respect is taught and earned not legislated.
A requirement of adherence or to comply with the law would likely have survived in the long term to benefit over years. It would also be strong in law, as you can measure this. This requirement might not last the next election and requires an interpretation on the "mind" of an organization and might not even be enforceable.
There are good reasons why someone may not agree with you on this. It does not mean that they are against the rights being spoken of here.
Now sure Singh has power to punish, so we cannot question that. It is the decision to punish on this flawed wording rather than recognize that this is not a matter of the substance of the rights but the wording and chocie of the mechanism that is being debated. A law for or against the access or compliance with the rights spoken of here should see the NDP stand in line, and I suspect that there would be nobody off-message. However, this is not exckusively about that. This can be fairly read as demanding an opinion. You might not read it that way but we do not all interpret the same and the wording of this requires interpretation. I would argue that it should not. I think tough legislation on compliance can be sweeping and that should come instead.
Interpreation is a rough one as I expect that we might also see a price for failing to include wording more specific to compliance. It is possible that an organization may assert that it respects (who can prove that) but will not enforce individual opinions and the requirement on compliance is weaker than core respect. Should this be tested, the language might not even protect the programs and employees as much as you might wish. In other words the government paid more attention to words and thought than deeds.
I cannot help but add that that is the style of this government. Lofty ideas come before, and sometimes instead of, real concrete action. The NDP could have proposed a drafted wording that was bullet proof in terms of complaince and made this very effective.
So if you have some actual information to help de-mystify this - please provide. I'm all ears.
Many people here have already provided examples where an past NDP leader has stripped an MP of their critic duties as punishment. Just last month Jagmeet Singh removed critic responsibilities from Erin Weir. Do you honestly think that removing a critic role from an MP is done by committee? You seem to be the only one who is questioning the leader authority in stripping a critic role from an MP. So by all means keep searching, but the conclusion will be the same answer we have all been telling you.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. If the organization believes they are providing true information, they will be fine. We haven't heard of any such organizations being charged with providing false information on a government app. If that ever happends, the courts will apply the "reasonable person" test.
Oh yes, that test. The result could be to make the statement meaningless unless we are to conclude that everyone who dislikes this wording is not a reasonable person given that the grounds for many people's dislike is what to them looks like an attempt to legislate an opinion. Of course legislating an opinion, no matter how worthy it is, is not legal in Canada -- only compliance.
The biggest loser here would have been an opportunity to actually do something meaningful. Narrowly and tightly compliance wording would have been less controversial, more legally durable and politically bullet proof. However the party that excells in words and sentiments over concrete action has brought us this instead.
If the Liberals fail, they can say they tried and signalled their virtue and that is all they needed to do. Real change is not something they really need or want. This was a political statement ratehr than a robust legal requirement, where I think a robust legal requirement might have done some real good and even led to change in the sentiments, culture and opinions over time. Rights are often first asserted in law and later capture broad support. This is picking a political fight to benefit a political party rather than attemtping to do something meaningful and achievable.
The opinions in my last two posts you may disagree with, but it is logic like this that can see a progressive NDP MP question this. Quite legitimately.
... or put the focus on the practical outcome of this gaffe.
Again, Nathan Cullen had what was probably the right interpretation of this when it first broke. It isn't about funding anti-abortion groups; it is about a really badly worded form that is unnecessarily intrusive, and will mean a lot of people who have nothing to do with that will suffer.
And the question of who within the party made the decision is also moot. but the heavy handed mechanism, and the outcome, which shuts out a respected member, is not. It also shows division within the party over an unnecessary problem. Much more important than what happened behind caucus doors is the reaction in public over this.
If this was over a critical issue it would be one thing, but semantics? Really?
Here's the whip's comment again from that NP piece:
“This lack of clarity has caused a number of MPs across party lines to wrestle with this issue. It was vague and confusing. Unfortunately, the debate had evolved beyond the contents of the motion at play, raising legitimate worries about the impact. To stand by our principle that we unequivocally defend a woman’s right to choose, the NDP opposed the motion and enforced a strict whipped vote.”
IOW We realize the Liberals screwed up royally on this, but we are going to support them in that screwup anyway and punish one of our own for not going along with it.
IOW We realize the Liberals screwed up royally on this, but we are going to support them in that screwup anyway and punish one of our own for not going along with it.
The problem is that in the age of "30 second" soundbite politics, the attestation is too convulated to explain in 30 seconds to the average voters. All people will hear from the Liberals is "The NDP voted against abortion rights". Even now the narrative out there is not about the confusion over the attestation, but an NDP MP being punished for siding with the Conservatives on funding to groups who are anti-abortion.
IOW We realize the Liberals screwed up royally on this, but we are going to support them in that screwup anyway and punish one of our own for not going along with it.
The problem is that in the age of "30 second" soundbite politics, the attestation is too convulated to explain in 30 seconds to the average voters. All people will hear from the Liberals is "The NDP voted against abortion rights". Even now the narrative out there is not about the confusion over the attestation, but an NDP MP being punished for siding with the Conservatives on funding to groups who are anti-abortion.
Exactly. The NDP can be idealistic or it can win elections it can't do both. Realistic does not have to mean moving to the centre. It means being able to see the lay of the land and avoid the minefields and enemy fire.
I cannot help but add that that is the style of this government. Lofty ideas come before, and sometimes instead of, real concrete action. The NDP could have proposed a drafted wording that was bullet proof in terms of complaince and made this very effective.
Yes! That would have been the perfect response. I didn't think of that but that you did suggests that this is a reasonable option for NDP strategists to have considered. I hope we are in a learning curve situation.
IOW We realize the Liberals screwed up royally on this, but we are going to support them in that screwup anyway and punish one of our own for not going along with it.
The problem is that in the age of "30 second" soundbite politics, the attestation is too convulated to explain in 30 seconds to the average voters. All people will hear from the Liberals is "The NDP voted against abortion rights". Even now the narrative out there is not about the confusion over the attestation, but an NDP MP being punished for siding with the Conservatives on funding to groups who are anti-abortion.
Exactly. The NDP can be idealistic or it can win elections it can't do both. Realistic does not have to mean moving to the centre. It means being able to see the lay of the land and avoid the minefields and enemy fire.
So you're saying, a party can't oppose something that is legally dubious as long as it's popular?
Christopherson's an issue because the NDP made him an issue.
I cannot help but add that that is the style of this government. Lofty ideas come before, and sometimes instead of, real concrete action. The NDP could have proposed a drafted wording that was bullet proof in terms of complaince and made this very effective.Yes! That would have been the perfect response. I didn't think of that but that you did suggests that this is a reasonable option for NDP strategists to have considered. I hope we are in a learning curve situation.
I am nto sure that it is too late to do this in this particular case. I agree with your sentiment that hopefully this is a learning experience. It would have been best if the leader and MP really sat down open to understanding each other's positions. Since they are in agreement on the issue of rights it should have been possible to isolate the problem with the wording. I do not know what his position is so I laid out mine thinking he might have been on the same wave-length.
The sad thing here is both the Liberal government and the NDP, including all their MPs are probably having the correct basic intentions although I feel the wording seemed more political than practical which is why I said what I did about the Liberals here.
And again, rubbing people's noses in it is also the style of this government. The classic example is the gun registry. There would likely have been a backlash anyway, but probably less so if the minister in charge hadn't been on record as saying the only people he felt should have guns are police and the military.
The completely irrelevant declaration in this case is a similar example of setting up an unnecessary lightning rod. Do they not see that this emboldens opponents of their just cause? And in this case they have god on their side, so they are even more insufferable.
Of course the more relevant question is what is the NDP's excuse, especially since they initially demonstrated they could walk and chew gum on this issue?
So if you have some actual information to help de-mystify this - please provide. I'm all ears.
Many people here have already provided examples where an past NDP leader has stripped an MP of their critic duties as punishment. Just last month Jagmeet Singh removed critic responsibilities from Erin Weir.
By what authority?
Do you honestly think that removing a critic role from an MP is done by committee?
No, and I do understand that "Leader" is a good thing and "committee" is a dirty word.
You seem to be the only one who is questioning the leader authority in stripping a critic role from an MP.
Exactly. I'm the only one questioning it. That's the point I've been making for several days. You got it! And just as I'm the only one questioning it, it takes only one person to answer it. Just one.
So by all means keep searching, but the conclusion will be the same answer we have all been telling you.
I've completed my search of the NDP constitution. My conclusion is simple: the Leader has no democratically or legislatively determined power to name or dismiss critics. But power, whether in the hands of the Leader, or in the minds of the Followers, doesn't need to be written down, right? It just needs to be respected.
Then who's role is it to name critics? Santa Claus's? Unless the Constitution explicitly prevents the leader from naming critics, perhaps it is regarded as an "executive" decision.
Then who's role is it to name critics? Santa Claus's? Unless the Constitution explicitly prevents the leader from naming critics, perhaps it is regarded as an "executive" decision.
The Leader can't make "executive" decisions. In an emergency situation, between meetings of the Executive or the Council, the six Officers can take action. But at least four Officers (50% + 1) need to meet to satisfy the quorum. And any action they take is subject to (though obviously doesn't need to wait for) approval by Executive or Council.
Council governs the party between conventions. The Executive can deal with a broad variety of issues, but all it's decisions and actions are subject to confirmation by Council - even issuing a statement in the name of the party. The Leader has no such powers.
That's the rule decided by convention delegates, elected by party members. No one has the right to change that rule between conventions.
I wasn't able to find the reference to Santa Claus.
The suspension of Erin Weir may have qualified as an "emergency" - although he had to wait several weeks before the investigator would even meet with him. The suspension of Christopherson is probably less of an "emergency". But even if it is, would it be unduly onerous to just follow what the constitution says, hold a conference call of four party officers, make the decision, and then seek approval at the next Executive or Council meeting?
If that's too much to ask, perhaps the inner elite could plead their case to delegates at convention to make their lives easier. Or, they could just ignore the rules, confident that anyone who questions their lack of authority will be treated as an ignoramus or an idle shit-disturber.
EDITED TO ADD: SocialJustice101, thanks for your reply. If you want chapter and verse references to my statements above, let me know - it will only take a couple of minutes to fill in the section and subsection numbers.
I've completed my search of the NDP constitution. My conclusion is simple: the Leader has no democratically or legislatively determined power to name or dismiss critics. But power, whether in the hands of the Leader, or in the minds of the Followers, doesn't need to be written down, right? It just needs to be respected.
If that is the case then who doles out critic assignments and also has the power to take them away?
Then I'd assume all the necessary actions are proposed by the leader to the council/executive, which has to approve the leader's recommendation. Singh probably has them on speed dial and it may be regarded as more of a formality, much like Royal Assent in Canada.
(Unionist, sure pls. feel free to provide the references.)
I've completed my search of the NDP constitution. My conclusion is simple: the Leader has no democratically or legislatively determined power to name or dismiss critics. But power, whether in the hands of the Leader, or in the minds of the Followers, doesn't need to be written down, right? It just needs to be respected.
If that is the case then who doles out critic assignments and also has the power to take them away?
The Executive, subject to confirmation by the next Council meeting. If it's deemed an emergency, the 6 party officers can act, but can then again be overruled by the Executive or the Council.
When you say "who doles out" - I can't tell you what happens in real life, because it appears to be secret - you know, like who suspended Christopherson - you say Singh, but you can't produce a statement by Singh or anyone saying so. My answer is based on the rules decided by the party members through convention.
My answer is based on the rules decided by the party members through convention.
And you are the only one here who believes that, despite what is in the constitution.
When the media says the Trudeau government passed a certain bill, what they really mean is that the House passed it, then the Senate, and then the GG signed it into law.
Similarly, when a party leader does something, I'd assume they obtained proper authorizations from the party.
Technically the Prime Minister is just a simple MP and there is no mention of a Prime Minister in the Constitution.
