NDP Regina-Lewvan Riding Assoc Tell Jagmeet Singh "Erin Weir is our candidate"

Hardly necessary to go that far. The Federal Council or its designate (i.e. Singh) can just name a candidate on the grounds that the association has not held a legitimate nomination. As we all know previous leaders have denied members the right to contest a nomination, but I think this is the first time an association has given notice that it indends to defy the leader. Yet another test of character for Singh.

Don’t we already have a rolling thread for this topic?

swallow wrote:

For another view than the one peddled by the Sask NDP grumpy elites, see https://briarpatchmagazine.com/blog/view/we-will-take-this-party-back

Because Pat Atkinson must be motivated by a desire to sweep issues of misogyny and harassment under the rug and that was her primary goal in coming to Weir's defense. It's not as though neither she nor women close to her have ever experienced misogyny and sexism in their personal lives.

swallow wrote:

Silly to think only Erin Weir can win the seat. A former candidate like Noah Evanchuk or another local activist could certainly win for the NDP here. Evanchuk almost won in 2011 when this was mostly the former  “rurban” riding of Palliser. The NDP vote went down almost 10% in 2015 with Weir as the candidate.

Let's take a closer look at the numbers. You look at the raw vote total, and just on that basis the NDP held its vote. So why did the percentage of NDP votes drop? Look at the Liberal numbers. There was a high number of new voters who voted almost exclusively for the Liberals. It's a fair argument to say that the NDP needed to do a better job engaging new voters and geting them to turn out for them. But that trend of the vote percentage of the NDP dropping in the face of a surging turnout for the Liberals happened in many Western Canadian ridings where the race was between the Conservatives and the NDP. It's not just an Erin Weir phenomenon, and most likely would have happened no matter who the NDP had chosen as its candidate.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Silly to think only Erin Weir can win the seat. A former candidate like Noah Evanchuk or another local activist could certainly win for the NDP here. Evanchuk almost won in 2011 when this was mostly the former  “rurban” riding of Palliser. The NDP vote went down almost 10% in 2015 with Weir as the candidate.

Let's take a closer look at the numbers. You look at the raw vote total, and just on that basis the NDP held its vote. So why did the percentage of NDP votes drop? Look at the Liberal numbers. There was a high number of new voters who voted almost exclusively for the Liberals. It's a fair argument to say that the NDP needed to do a better job engaging new voters and geting them to turn out for them. But that trend of the vote percentage of the NDP dropping in the face of a surging turnout for the Liberals happened in many Western Canadian ridings where the race was between the Conservatives and the NDP. It's not just an Erin Weir phenomenon, and most likely would have happened no matter who the NDP had chosen as its candidate.

I agree, Aristotle.  I made the same point above at post #7.

The 2015 Election was unusual in Saskatchewan because the National Trudeau Wave ended up giving the Liberals their best numbers in Saskatchewan in many years.  The Liberals had completely collapsed in SK under Dion & Ignatieff in all the SK ridings except Ralph Goodale's long-term seat in Wascana.

But under Trudeau in 2015, the Liberals did well across the West, finishing 1st in BC for the first time since 1968, and winning more seats in MB than the Cons or NDP, and winning 4 seats in AB.  This also spilled over to SK.  Although the Libs only won the Goodale seat, he won by a larger margin than usual, and the Lib vote share went up in the other SK ridings.

With the Lib vote share likely to drop off in SK in 2019, the NDP might pick up some of those votes (or some may go to the Cons).

Let’s, and close this one, sure. But I’m sure it won’t destroy babble if I reply here. 

Yes, 2015 numbers not just an Erin Weir phenomenon. Nor is the riding winnable only by Erin Weir, as grumpy Sask NDP elites assert in their battle with, yes, incompetent federal NDP elites outside Sask. 

swallow wrote:

Silly to think only Erin Weir can win the seat.

If Erin Weir runs as an independent and takes a great deal of former NDP support with him, how does the NDP hold on in that case?

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Silly to think only Erin Weir can win the seat.

If Erin Weir runs as an independent and takes a great deal of former NDP support with him, how does the NDP hold on in that case?

I'm all for pragmatic decision-making but at some point principles have to matter. Weir had his chance to maintain his position but instead he publically denounced one of the women and minimized the complaints of others. He suggested that all men would have the same issues he did were women asked of their behavior.  It seems that many men agree which makes me wonder if Weir is right, and those men would have the same complaints leveled against them. To me that does not speak to Weir's innocence. 

If he runs as an independent it is simply more proof that he isn't a progressive man because he knows he can't win as an independent. His attitude since the findings has been one of entitlement and outrage that he should be held to account. He stated publicly that he would not have spoken to the press had he known what Singh's reaction would be. As far as I can recall he has spoken his truth throughout. He sincerely believes he did nothing any other man wouldn't do. 

Some men here embraced his description of what happened as merely standing a little too close and speaking a little too long as accurate. If that is true then what does that make the women? Women of today are not such sensitive flowers that we interpret "standing a little too close or speaking a little too long" as sexual harassment or intimidation. People went so far as to diagnosing him with Aspergers in their zeal to excuse his behavior. 

I wonder if this is similar to the old disbelief when coaches were accused of sexual misconduct. "But he's such a nice guy". 

https://briarpatchmagazine.com/blog/view/dear-erin-weir-what-are-you-doing

By quoting right-wing pundits attacking the #MeToo movement in an email to supporters, you’re spurring on those who would characterize the widespread outings of abusive men as “witch hunts.” This case is not just about you – it’s about feeding into a system that silences and punishes women for coming forward.

Is winning the seat is more important than defending women and our ability to participate in public life without harassment? Supporting Weir is dismissing the four women who came forward.

Weir was not expelled from caucus for sexual harassment. Far from it. He was accepted back into caucus with the sole requirement that he take some anti-harassment training. 

He was expelled for outing one of the women and rejecting all the claims against him as trumped up. There is no fence to sit on here. Either we believe the women or we believe Weir. 

This is the impression I have.

I think that there may be the uncomfortable reality that principles for some NDP supporters were inconvenient in this case.

I remain on the side of agreeing that he should be out.

Hilarious. Pondering reappears, and we're supposed to re-debate the issue of Erin Weir being a serial sexual aggressor?

Ok, great, let's rewind.

Villain #1 in this piece is Christine Moore, who based on hearsay, accused and defamed Weir in a group email to the entire caucus rather than taking whatever information she had to the appropriate party authority for handling.

Villian #2 is the party apparatchik who tried to physically block Weir from speaking at the mike at his party convention because he wasn't following the Politbureau's line on carbon tax - and when he resisted, she accused him (publicly) of being "angry and belligerent", surely a capital offence.

Villain #3 is Jagmeet Singh, who instead of cautioning Moore, listened to his Politbureau and said, "holy shit, I'd better issue a public call for all Weir's victims who have never breathed a word to come forward" - and they apparently did, with stories of abuse of which we know zero details, so Pondering can blithely state, well, it must have been really awful! To date, Weir has said the accusations amounted to standing too close and talking too much, which he has admitted and apologized for - and no one, not one single person, has come forward and said, "no, it was worse than that, here's an example!" And he never once said those three accusations were "trumped up", contrary to Pondering's never-ending creativity with the written word.

Villain #4: The so-called "independent investigator", hired and paid by the Politbureau, who smilingly went along with a Star Chamber proceeding where Weir was not allowed to know the names of his accusers! Such an "investigation" would be struck down as illegitimate in any workplace setting.

Villain #5: The initial apparatchik again, who went public once more after the investigation report was out.

Villain #6: The Politbureau, via J. Singh, which never responded to Weir's request for advice as to how to deal with this impropriety - still trying to do what was right under impossible conditions. When no answer came, he spoke to the media. But he "outed" nobody. Or if he did, perhaps Pondering could supply the name or names of his victim(s)?

I personally don't care whether the NDP (or Weir for that matter) wins or loses Regina-Lewvan. I do care that a party calling itself democratic makes a mockery of due process and engages in character assassination. This is the same party that arbitrarily bans principled activists from running under the party banner (Jonasson, Manly, Wheeldon, Ali, Natanine, etc.), with no recourse of any kind, because it's scared shitless of the Israel lobby, among others.

And all this is done to the cheers at worst, or silence at best, of the weary party membership.

Unless its members purge the Politbureau and the cowardly ideology that animates it, this party will die. Canada will be the worse for that death, I don't kid myself about that. But are there enough Niki Ashtons, Svend Robinson, Jessa McLeans, with enough stamina to take up our quarrel with the foe? Be theirs to hold it high.

And just a couple more things:

Pondering wrote:

He was expelled for outing one of the women and rejecting all the claims against him as trumped up. There is no fence to sit on here. Either we believe the women or we believe Weir. 

With respect to your assertion that Weir characterized the sexual harassment complaints against him as "trumped up" I have never seen a direct quote of him using those words. However, as Pat Atkinson has noted: "the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that sexual harassment must include sexual behavior. And in this case it did not. It was just simply someone standing too close." Weir has asked for, but been denied an independent appeal of the investigator's findings of harassment.

With respect to your second assertion I would urge you not to lose sight of the fact that the one complainant who Weir supposedly "outed" had not alleged sexual harassment but rather only complained about alleged non-sexual "intimidation" that had occurred in a public place with witnesses. The same individual leaked details of her complaint to the CBC prior to the announcement of the reinstatement agreement, in an apparent (and apparently successful) effort to scuttle that agreement.

"Either we believe the women, or we believe Weir" is a false dichotomy. What about believing in due process and proportionality?

Yes, thanks Robbie.

robbie_dee wrote:

If y'all really want to thank me you can try to steer any further discussion of this topic to the rolling Erin Weir saga #3 thread since that one already includes all the prior information and discussions.

OMG you're right, I forgot my own exhortation!!

Click here to continue this conversation.

Unionist wrote:

Hilarious. Pondering reappears, and we're supposed to re-debate the issue of Erin Weir being a serial sexual aggressor?

Ok, great, let's rewind.

I didn't raise the topic of Weir in this thread. I think training was a proportionate response and he should have accepted it and shut-up. Had he done so he would still be in caucus. 

As to the "trumped up" he stated that any man would have the same accusations against them if they were solicited. That's the definition of trumped up. 

Some posters want to hang this all on Singh but the entire NDP caucus stood behind Singh not Weir on this one. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Pondering tell us your thoughts on the subject of a riding association's right to pick a candidate of its choosing. I think it has to be a fundamental part of any democratic party that believes in grassroots activism.

Tough question. Within reason, of course the local riding should get to elect the candidate as their support is needed but what if they chose a racist? Would it not be the responsibility of the party to reject them? Ridings can be corrupted. 

I think our system is flawed and outdated. I am almost fully converted to PR but Dion's model not the party model. I am against party assigned seats because those MPs really answer to the party even more than they do now.