Green Party coup

226 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

http://stuartparker.ca/category/identity-politics/

That's his blog and it is transphobic.

Such a massive analysis for just being asked to be polite. 

Trying to expel Haddad is going to backfire. Those who would vote for her will switch to Lascaris if forced giving him higher numbers on the first count and if she makes it back on it has increased her profile.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/green-party-membership-numbers-soar-in-a...

The party says membership is up from 22,000 at the end of the 2019 federal election, with officials saying the Greens added 15,000 new members to their list during the leadership race....

Paul was closing in on $200,000 in donations by the end of August, almost one-third of the total amount raised by all the candidates in the race. Lascaris showed significant momentum that same month, nearly doubling his total donations to more than $112,000.

Paul also leads in total number of donors, with more than 1,600, compared to 958 for Lascaris. All of the remaining candidates had fewer than 410 donors each.

Looks like the fight is definitely between Lascaris and Paul. 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/05/25/elizabeth-may-offers...

May’s presence in the leadership contest flared into a debate amongst Greens in recent days after Toronto-based candidate Annamie Paul shared plans to co-host a virtual “tour” with the former leader to raise money and discuss issues with party members.

Her policy is here https://www.annamiepaul.ca/policy 

Paul's focuses solely on Canada and domestic policy. She doesn't even touch on trade deals. It is as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. During the foreign policy debate her focus was about Biden being better to work with than Trump and how little influence we have over China so the need to work with allies. All of her answers centered on our being a middling power with little influence bringing the focus back on us to clean up our act first.

Lascaris platform is here https://www.teamdimitri.ca/platform

It's a much more serious platform. He draws the big picture connecting climate change and neoliberalism. Every section starts with the title and a few paragraphs like Paul's but Lascaris has a link to PDFs and covers more topics. Lascaris manages to cover a huge amount of ground but in layperson friendly language. He is brutally honest about the huge challenges we face and how to tackle them. He makes it really clear that it won't be enough to just develop green technology. We have to change our relationship with the global community. There will be climate refugees. We have to end colonialism. He draws lines between neoliberalism, capitalism and climate change. Somewhere he pointed out that this is an emergency therefore his suggestions are not radical they are required if we are to save ourselves.

In the foreign policy debates he indicated we should quit both the lima group and nato. 

Another factor impacting the vote is that everyone knows we won't win the election (anytime soon). This is about having a voice, getting people to realize what is possible. It is about how to rescue the planet from climate change. 

Although May is considerd highly successful we haven't gone far on greening the economy. In terms of really significant action there hasn't been any. 

Lascaris could scare some off but I don't think he will because Paul is so unambitious. I think those who joined the party are on the left and hasn't appreciated the NDP timidity it taking a stand on climate change. Having a party that is going to shake things up is more important than the number of seats won. From the slate of candidates it looks like there is a strong left presence within the party too. 

Haddad and Lascaris are the only two to vote Lima and NATO down so I think he will pick up her second votes. Kuttner and Paul were pass. All the rest were thumbs up. I think pass on the part of Paul is a cop-out. From her "policy" she has no interest in foreign affairs so she wouldn't argue against. 

Even though Lascaris may seem extreme he is very convincing. I don't think "losing seats" will be a priority for voters on the left. Paul will take the moderates. My instincts tell me there are not that many moderates in the Green party. 

I think it might be close, or a landslide for Lascaris. Here's hoping I'm right. 

Even if I am wrong I am willing to stick with the party to contribute to the influence of the left side of the party which I think will be much larger than the one in the NDP. 

So 22K existing members and 15K (and counting) new members. Paul is favored by May and raised the most $.

 

NDPP

"I congratulate Meryam Haddad for winning her appeal in the Canadian Greens leadership contest. From the time I learned of her removal, I expressed hope Meryam would return. The members should decide the leadership. I commend the LCC for defending grassroots democracy."

https://twitter.com/dimitrilcascaris/status/1309165824880631811

Pondering

Interesting article:

https://ricochet.media/en/3303/anatomy-of-an-expulsion-48-hours-in-the-l...

This seems to be the offending tweet

https://twitter.com/MeryamHd2020/status/1308158135614484486?ref_src=twsr...

The letters she recieved: (3)

https://twitter.com/MeryamHd2020/status/1309175156435189761/photo/1

The LCA has become aware of twitter posts in which you publically criticize elected members of the Green Party of British Columbia and endorse a rival political party. We find that you have discredited and have intentionally damaged the interests of the Green Party of Canada blah blah blab

The letter goes on to explain that although they are separate parties the GPC and BCG share the same brand and benefit from each other's success. BC Greens could resent it and not vote for GPC. Also, it could make it more difficult for the two parties to work together. 

When asked if there was any rule prohibiting leadership candidates from supporting another party at the provincial level, Roberts said no. “We have a policy that says you cannot be a member of any other federal party while you are a member of the Green Party of Canada, but it does not apply to provincial parties.”....

Ricochet consulted Michael Simkin, a lawyer and member of the bar in Quebec and B.C. He said the rules that govern the party’s leadership contest are clear, and the party is obligated to release the report. He described their rationale for refusing to release the report as “inaccurate,” “disingenuous” and “contrary to basic legal principles.”...

Haddad is describing what she has publicly denounced as a pattern of attacks on her by the party establishment.

 

Former Green Party leader Elizabeth May has publicly denounced efforts to sign up large numbers of new members as an effort to hijack the party. When asked if May had been part of this pattern of harassment, Haddad replied, “Yes. I’m not sure it would be a good idea to go there. But the reality is, yes.”...

“I will speak out loud a fear I have that some of the big jump-in members are people who aren’t committed to the party but may like one particular candidate and will leave the party if their person doesn’t win. Please remember that our long-time, long-term Greens have to vote or we could be hijacked. So I will speak my fear out loud. And that’s a non-partisan statement.”

“Please do everything you can at the grassroots level to get a high voter turnout,” concludes May, “particularly from people who’ve been members of the party for more than the last couple weeks.”

Connor Kelly “We’ve heard concerns expressed about people trying to hijack the party … lots of people jumping to the idea that what we’re doing is anti-democratic or underhanded in some way.”

For Kelly, the goal is to remake the Green Party as the party of youth. He says youth feel excluded from traditional parties and are looking for a party to represent left-wing positions that have majority support among young people.

 

 

Pondering

So it is a coup. It seems May and the executive want to go the way of the NDP. Democratic as long as they approve everything.

It seems the 22K original members are not that enthusiastic. She refers to people not showing up over the years.  Maybe that is because the party hasn't been inspiring anyone with May's slogan "not left not right but forward". 

Singh was also accused of "hijacking" by having signed up so many new members and he did win because of it. 

The Green party isn't being hijacked but the plan is to take over the party by youth and the left. I am surprised it seems to be Haddad that May has had the most issues with. Maybe Haddad has signed up a lot of youth. May hoped if Haddad was out of the race they wouldn't vote. To try to kick her out this close to the vote makes me think they are afraid that Paul is going to lose. Haddad second choices would probably go to Lascaris. 

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

So it is a coup. It seems May and the executive want to go the way of the NDP. Democratic as long as they approve everything.

It seems the 22K original members are not that enthusiastic. She refers to people not showing up over the years.  Maybe that is because the party hasn't been inspiring anyone with May's slogan "not left not right but forward". 

Singh was also accused of "hijacking" by having signed up so many new members and he did win because of it. 

The Green party isn't being hijacked but the plan is to take over the party by youth and the left. I am surprised it seems to be Haddad that May has had the most issues with. Maybe Haddad has signed up a lot of youth. May hoped if Haddad was out of the race they wouldn't vote. To try to kick her out this close to the vote makes me think they are afraid that Paul is going to lose. Haddad second choices would probably go to Lascaris. 

1) Harris and May ALWAYS kept the GPC less internally democratic than the NDP, and possibly no more internally democratic than the Liberals.   

2) Singh did recruit new members, but he was a comprehensive failure at doing what he was supposed to be certain to do- cause a massive swing to the NDP among visible minority voters in the Toronto area and in Vancouver and environs.

3) May would probably like to disqualify Lascaris, but it was Haddad who gave May's apparatchiks the pretext to move against her, by speaking favorably of a party besides the Greens, the BC Ecosocialists, at the start of the BC provincial election- even though she undid any good her favorable references to the Ecosocialists might have done them by calling out their leader- and justifiably so- for his transphobic blog.   I suspect that, in the end, they realized that what she'd done actually ended up helping the BC Greens in spite of it all, and that that was why they requalified her for the ballot.

As I said, they may also have felt that that disqualifying Haddad would indirectly slow down Lascaris' momentum, by depriving him of the second-preference votes Haddad's supporters were likely to give him.  But this went down so quickly that it's doubtful that the episode made any real difference.

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

So it is a coup. It seems May and the executive want to go the way of the NDP. Democratic as long as they approve everything.

It seems the 22K original members are not that enthusiastic. She refers to people not showing up over the years.  Maybe that is because the party hasn't been inspiring anyone with May's slogan "not left not right but forward". 

Singh was also accused of "hijacking" by having signed up so many new members and he did win because of it. 

The Green party isn't being hijacked but the plan is to take over the party by youth and the left. I am surprised it seems to be Haddad that May has had the most issues with. Maybe Haddad has signed up a lot of youth. May hoped if Haddad was out of the race they wouldn't vote. To try to kick her out this close to the vote makes me think they are afraid that Paul is going to lose. Haddad second choices would probably go to Lascaris. 

1) Harris and May ALWAYS kept the GPC less internally democratic than the NDP, and possibly no more internally democratic than the Liberals.   

2) Singh did recruit new members, but he was a comprehensive failure at doing what he was supposed to be certain to do- cause a massive swing to the NDP among visible minority voters in the Toronto area and in Vancouver and environs.

3) May would probably like to disqualify Lascaris, but it was Haddad who gave May's apparatchiks the pretext to move against her, by speaking favorably of a party besides the Greens, the BC Ecosocialists, at the start of the BC provincial election- even though she undid any good her favorable references to the Ecosocialists might have done them by calling out their leader- and justifiably so- for his transphobic blog.   I suspect that, in the end, they realized that what she'd done actually ended up helping the BC Greens in spite of it all, and that that was why they requalified her for the ballot.

As I said, they may also have felt that that disqualifying Haddad would indirectly slow down Lascaris' momentum, by depriving him of the second-preference votes Haddad's supporters were likely to give him.  But this went down so quickly that it's doubtful that the episode made any real difference.

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

So it is a coup. It seems May and the executive want to go the way of the NDP. Democratic as long as they approve everything.

It seems the 22K original members are not that enthusiastic. She refers to people not showing up over the years.  Maybe that is because the party hasn't been inspiring anyone with May's slogan "not left not right but forward". 

Singh was also accused of "hijacking" by having signed up so many new members and he did win because of it. 

The Green party isn't being hijacked but the plan is to take over the party by youth and the left. I am surprised it seems to be Haddad that May has had the most issues with. Maybe Haddad has signed up a lot of youth. May hoped if Haddad was out of the race they wouldn't vote. To try to kick her out this close to the vote makes me think they are afraid that Paul is going to lose. Haddad second choices would probably go to Lascaris. 

1) Harris and May ALWAYS kept the GPC less internally democratic than the NDP, and possibly no more internally democratic than the Liberals.   

2) Singh did recruit new members, but he was a comprehensive failure at doing what he was supposed to be certain to do- cause a massive swing to the NDP among visible minority voters in the Toronto area and in Vancouver and environs.

3) May would probably like to disqualify Lascaris, but it was Haddad who gave May's apparatchiks the pretext to move against her, by speaking favorably of a party besides the Greens, the BC Ecosocialists, at the start of the BC provincial election- even though she undid any good her favorable references to the Ecosocialists might have done them by calling out their leader- and justifiably so- for his transphobic blog.   I suspect that, in the end, they realized that what she'd done actually ended up helping the BC Greens in spite of it all, and that that was why they requalified her for the ballot.

As I said, they may also have felt that that disqualifying Haddad would indirectly slow down Lascaris' momentum, by depriving him of the second-preference votes Haddad's supporters were likely to give him.  But this went down so quickly that it's doubtful that the episode made any real difference.

Pondering

Thanks Ken. I find this all fascinating. It's really difficult to wait for Oct. 3rd. Based on practically nothing I think Lascaris will win which is what I want but then I think nah, too good to be true. I'm watching all the interviews he has done. 

On your first point, on Harris and May limiting democracy. I see that in her statements and treatment of Haddad. I think until now it has been easy to limit member participation. Many people just join the party because the environment is high on their list and it's a way to send a message that it is a priory.  I've questioned in the past if I should vote Green or Marijuana as a statement. I could see joining the party as a similar move. It could be that most members are disengaged and accustomed to May winning the only seat and being the face and guide of the party.  She has been the one to recruit people to run for seats so she (and the executive) pushed for candidates who would accept her path to winning.  I do know that even before this leadership race there were leftist resolutions passed so that she didn't like but even if they became policy she could ignore and just not talk about that aspect of policy, like on Israel. 

(just started reading up on Harris, I thought May was the only leader the party ever had. 

https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/11/04/May-Resigns-as-Green-Leader/

 “I stayed on as leader because the party wanted me to stay on as leader, and I had 94-per-cent approval ratings and nobody wanted me to step down after 2015, .....

Ahead of the election the Globe and Mail quoted May saying she had tried herself to find a successor who would be compatible with her as the party’s sole MP. “I asked multiple people, and I failed to find one candidate who was a person I really respected, who was willing to take it on.”

That sounds like she was planning to annoint someone "compatible"

I’ve taken the decision with council’s support that I will remain neutral and not give anyone any hints one way or the other,” 

After which she campaigned with Paul and no one else so seems to me she did pick her successor she just couldn't instate her without a vote from the membership but she thought it would be performative. She thought Paul was left enough to satisfy the base and there wouldn't be serious competition. Were it not for the 15K new members she might have been right. That's why she called it a "hijack" then retracted. 

Now I am reading about Harris and whoever else got elected. I'm probably going to post way too much because everytime I read something about the party it gives me something else to look up and I am still watching Lascaris videos.

I want to be an informed member. 

Badriya

I just wanted to remind you, Pondering and Ken, that Dimitri Lascaris was disqualified from running for the leadership on May 26.  He submitted an appeal to the vetting committee and was later re-instated. 

Here is Lescaris' tweet announcing his disqualification.

Today, I received word that my application to run in the Green Party of Canada leadership race has not been accepted. I have asked the party's anonymous vetting committee to explain its reasons for not accepting my application. (1/2)

I have appealed the decision of the Green Party’s leadership vetting committee. The appeal process will take seven days. Please stay tuned. This is but one more challenge on our long journey toward environmental and social justice. (2/2)

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1265426834814046210?s=19

Ken Burch

Badriya wrote:

I just wanted to remind you, Pondering and Ken, that Dimitri Lascaris was disqualified from running for the leadership on May 26.  He submitted an appeal to the vetting committee and was later re-instated. 

Here is Lescaris' tweet announcing his disqualification.

Today, I received word that my application to run in the Green Party of Canada leadership race has not been accepted. I have asked the party's anonymous vetting committee to explain its reasons for not accepting my application. (1/2)

I have appealed the decision of the Green Party’s leadership vetting committee. The appeal process will take seven days. Please stay tuned. This is but one more challenge on our long journey toward environmental and social justice. (2/2)

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1265426834814046210?s=19

Thanks for that information.

Pondering

But they both got reinstated quickly. I am going to be so depressed if Paul wins. I'll just have to stay an active member supporting the Justice Greens and Lascaris, Haddad and Kuttner, although I don't really know what that means in terms of actions. 

I support Kuttner but she could not be leader of the party. In the Foreign Affairs debate she hesitated on the queston of China then mentioned that she still has family in Hong Kong.  

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

"I support Kuttner but she could not be leader of the party. In the Foreign Affairs debate she hesitated on the queston of China then mentioned that she still has family in Hong Kong."

People can run for the leadership of political parties in Canada if they have family living in Hong Kong. That is just like saying that Jagmeet Singh should never be Prime Minister of Canada because he has relatives living in India.

Pondering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZgLKwi1gn4&t=5807s&ab_channel=rabble.ca...

48:27

She says she doesn't get to speak freely about China because her family is in Hong Kong.  I hope you are not going to accuse her of demonizing China. 

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

That is not what she said. She said that she doesn't get the "opportunity" to speak so freely and passionately about a topic that is so strong for her because of her personal family ties in Hong Kong.

 You are the only person making an issue about this. No one else is.

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

That is not what she said. She said that she doesn't get the "opportunity" to speak so freely and passionately about a topic that is so strong for her because of her personal family ties in Hong Kong.

 You are the only person making an issue about this. No one else is.

What does that have to do with anything?

You can't have a leader afraid of what a foreign government might do to their family.  As a private citizen she is afraid to speak out.  As a leader China would have leverage over her. Do you not see the problem with that?

Misfit Misfit's picture

No. If it was an issue she wouldn't run for the leadership of a political party. This is the same line of argument that was directed against Jagmeet Singh.

Sikhs in India are pushing for an independent state. The argument has been levied that Jagmeet's personal interest in an independent Sikh state puts him in a possible conflict of interest situation on Indian-Canadian international issues which may run contrary to Canada's best interests if he were the Prime Minister of Canada.

The leader of a political party that forms government becomes the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Canada has a Canadian Ambassador to China and a Canadian Embassy in China that works on diplomatic relations with China all the time.

But if it makes you happy, we can enact a law that says that Chinese Canadians cannot run for the leadership of national parties because they may not be able to handle the job when it comes to diplomatic relations with China. I don't see any human rights problems arising  with that.

Pondering

No it isn't. There is no reason to believe Singh can be blackmailed into doing the bidding of another nation. Nobody is going to disappear his relatives.

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

No it isn't. There is no reason to believe Singh can be blackmailed into doing the bidding of another nation. Nobody is going to disappear his relatives.

I'm not sure you can put that past Narendra Modi, or his bully boys in the Rss.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

No it isn't. There is no reason to believe Singh can be blackmailed into doing the bidding of another nation. Nobody is going to disappear his relatives.

I'm not sure you can put that past Narendra Modi, or his bully boys in the Rss.

Perhaps so but Kuttner stated that she could not speak about China because she has family in Hong Kong. 

I don't recall Singh saying anything remotely similar to that. 

I don't understand how this can even be debated. Kuttner stated that China controls what she can and can't say.  I found that shocking and chilling. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZgLKwi1gn4&t=5807s&ab_channel=rabble.ca...

48:27

She says she doesn't get to speak freely about China because her family is in Hong Kong.  I hope you are not going to accuse her of demonizing China. 

 

Do you mean the fact that she thinks China is an imperial threat. None of what I heard is internationalist it is all our Canadian version of exceptionalism. Who the fuck are these Canadian politicians to be saying we should punish other countries for human rights abuses. The hypocrisy is disgusting and appalling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBFBxcjVjc&t=12s

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZgLKwi1gn4&t=5807s&ab_channel=rabble.ca...

48:27

She says she doesn't get to speak freely about China because her family is in Hong Kong.  I hope you are not going to accuse her of demonizing China. 

 

Do you mean the fact that she thinks China is an imperial threat. None of what I heard is internationalist it is all our Canadian version of exceptionalism. Who the fuck are these Canadian politicians to be saying we should punish other countries for human rights abuses. The hypocrisy is disgusting and appalling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBFBxcjVjc&t=12s

No. I mean the fact that she believes her family will suffer, perhaps be killed, if she doesn't say what China wants her to say. Are you saying that Kuttner is only saying that in order to demonize China? 

I don't see what it has to do with indigenous people. 

Pondering

https://www.teamdimitri.ca/feature_ralph_shayne

Team Dimitri is honoured to receive the endorsement of Ralph Shayne, President of the Quebec Wing of the Green Party of Canada.

“In a year where everything is going badly, the Green Party of Canada leadership race is a glimmer of hope that makes me very optimistic. We are fortunate to have candidates who have been full of ideas and creativity to make Canada greener, fairer and more prosperous. Having said that, it is understandable to have a preference and mine is Dimitri Lascaris.

I've only known Dimitri for a few months, but his commitment to the environment and social justice is evident throughout his impressive career. In fact, he has stood up to the major corporate and political interests that tirelessly attempt to exploit and muzzle citizens in Canada and around the world. Yes, his defence of humanity goes beyond our borders: Dimitri does not mince his words to make our government accountable when it supports repressive states; the same goes for our mining companies who do not hesitate to pollute or trample on human rights throughout the world.

Moreover, the international scope of his experience as well as his demonstrated ability to deliver the goods in Canada — defending ordinary citizens against the Establishment —... are precisely the qualities that set him apart from other candidates. The icing on the cake is that Dimitri is a bilingual Quebec candidate who understands the Quebec identity.

Pondering

More evidence that eco-socialism is firmly entrenched in the Green party whether or not Lascaris wins. Aside from the president of the Quebec wing he also got this endorsement. 

Sharon Labchuk is a three-time candidate, regional organizer, shadow cabinet critic under two leaders, campaign manager for Elizabeth May and national Director for Organizing for 5 years. She also founded the Green Party of PEI in 2005 and led it for 7 years.

Voting ends at 730 PM tomorrow evening and results will be announced "live" although I don't know where that will be broadcast. 

Pondering

Green party grassroots are much farther left than May and the executive because they passed a BDS resolution that May ignored.  Now May and Paul are accusing Lascaris of anti-seminism on the eve of the vote.  Either they think that they are losing, or they think even if they win Lascaris will remain too powerful. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7373076/green-party-canada-confronts-anti-sem...

“My view and the party’s views are solid on this: to the extent that anyone who is running for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada and who has expressed anti-Semitic views, they shouldn’t have been allowed to run,” May said in an interview this week.

As a former leader — and a relatively popular one at that— May was asked by the party to refrain from endorsing any candidate but she did ask party supporters to financially support Paul’s candidacy as part of a campaign “to help fundraise for candidates who will improve the party’s track record for inclusiveness and diversity.”...

Paul said that she did not think it was appropriate for Lascaris to be a candidate for the party’s leadership.

“Not so much because of what was said, but because of the continuous lack of understanding or recognition of the impact,” she said. “There are people that simply need to be educated. They don’t realize the impact of their words. They might not realize the historical implications of that kind of comment.

“But once … it’s been explained to you, once you’ve been told what the hurt is, if you continue to persist in being unwilling to apologize or to recognize it, then that’s something else altogether.”

That's the category Paul dares to place Lascaris in. May tried to stop Lascaris from running but she was over-ruled because he has a defence.  He was told he couldn't discuss the reason he was initially rejected because the party did not want a big fight over anti-semitism to erupt right before they elected a new leader.

And supporters of Lascaris have complained that May did not abide by a resolution — moved by Lascaris himself — that was adopted by grassroots party members in support of the controversial campaign to “Boycott, Divest, and Sanction” Israeli-owned businesses and assets.

His defence is here:

https://dimitrilascaris.org/2018/09/11/my-response-to-prime-minister-jus...

 

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Reminder to folks who are Green Party of Canada members that you have until tomorrow (Oct 3) at 7:00pm Atlantic Time (3:00pm Pacific Time) to vote online for the next leader of the Green Party of Canada.

josh

NM

jerrym

As Green Party members soon begin to vote, candidate Meryam Haddad on CBC Power and Politics says there is a ticking 'time bomb' within the party "over whether the party's executive director Prateek Awasthi should resign over past behaviour and harassment complaints", with people divided over whether he should continue in the job.

As it heads into its leadership contest, a struggle is playing out on the Green Party's federal council over whether the party's executive director Prateek Awasthi should resign over past behaviour and harassment complaints, CBC News has learned.

Multiple people on the party council tell CBC News the body is divided over whether Awasthi should continue in his current role. Party president Jean-Luc Cooke resigned, a council member quit the party entirely, two of Green leadership candidate Meryam Haddad's campaign staffers have quit and other grassroots members have threatened to leave the party over the dispute.

"I feel like there's a ticking bomb ... in the party," said Haddad. "Us, the party, the establishment trying to hide certain allegations ... The party's covering up all of this."

The party hired Awasthi in May. During his job interview, Awasthi disclosed his version of events that transpired at his previous workplace, Engineers Without Borders (EWB), but he did not tell the party that he'd personally faced harassment allegations at EWB, according to interim Green Party leader Jo-Ann Roberts.

Awasthi told the party he was part of EWB management's "efforts to disparage and ignore claims of sexual harassment and assault," according to an internal investigation report written by outgoing leader Elizabeth May and leaked to CBC News.

That report says Awasthi told the party he had ignored tweets about harassment based on legal advice and "in the spirit of loyalty without realizing that in doing so, I was unknowingly discrediting a survivor of sexual violence."...

"I do not support what has happened," said former Green federal council member Lorraine Hewlett, who stepped down from the council, the human resources committee and the party altogether in response to the controversy.

"Part of my resignation was in protest against that. I do not want to be associated with the retention of this employee ... When it comes to the 'Me Too' movement, I wanted to come down on the right side of this issue."

Awasthi later told council he apologized to the complainant, took responsibility and resigned from EWB.

"I didn't know what I had done was wrong, but the moment I was called out, I stopped, I stepped back, did everything I could to correct my mistakes and took personal accountability for my actions (and inactions)," Awasthi wrote in a letter to the Greens' federal council on July 18. "I feel disappointed in myself and others for not having adopted a survivor-centric approach from day one."

Awasthi said in his letter to the council that when he disclosed his "mistakes" at the EWB to the Green party officials vetting him, they "agreed that this experience would be an asset for the GPC if ever we deal with a similar situation in the future." He also said he offered to resign if the party thinks he's unfit for the job.

Roberts said she considers the matter a confidential human resources issue. "The hiring committee looked into it and we determined that it did not disqualify Mr. Awasthi as a candidate," said Roberts. 

The hiring committee did not share Awasthi's account of his experience at EWB with the party's council, however. According to May's report, it doesn't appear that anyone from the party tried to verify Awasthi's version of events.

"I do believe that this should have been brought to council, but I can tell you it was an oversight," said Roberts. "It wasn't intentional to hide this." ...

Two of the EWB complainants who spoke to CBC News accused Awasthi of harassment, saying he was aggressive in meetings, talked to employees in a demeaning tone and contributed to a toxic work environment.

According to internal emails viewed by CBC News, an internal EWB investigation found no evidence of harassment as of June 2019 and added the organization's human resources department concluded there was a workplace conflict in Awasthi's team.

A third former employee at EWB, Chelsey Rhodes, accused Awasthi of taking part in an effort to discredit her personal reputation and her work. Rhodes said she was a victim of harassment at EWB and that she broke her non-disclosure agreement to speak up about systemic harassment and cover-ups in the humanitarian aid, development and NGO sector. She said she launched an online project to gather stories from other alleged victims and tweeted several of her claims about Awasthi's workplace behaviour directly at May.

In a statement to CBC News, Awasthi said he's been "open" about his "brief role in the [EWB's] response to claims that it had failed to properly address a case of sexual harassment that occurred in 2011." He said that when he learned in 2019 that information he had was in dispute, he corrected the record and apologized. "I have every confidence in the Green Party's internal processes," he said. "I will not comment further. Our focus is now on preparing the organization to welcome the new leader." ...

May launched her own internal investigation in July and spoke to former EWB employees. According to her internal report, May heard claims that Awasthi picked on a female EWB staffer, driving her to tears on occasion, and that there was one case of an inappropriate sexual suggestion at EWB.

"There was no reason to believe Awasthi was involved in sexual harassment or assault. Ever," said a confidential email from May on July 25 to the federal council. "I do believe he bullied junior staff in the spring of 2019, but has amended his conduct and learned from his experience," she wrote. "We, as a party, are at a perilous moment. We are on the verge of a public lynching of an innocent human being." ...

May wrote in her report that the Greens needed to prepare for the media getting wind of the story.

"He has — as some could argue — done nothing that would damage us as an organization," she said. "Still, we know that there is a high degree of trauma around such incidents and the reputational risk may not be survivable. On this, I hope [the Green Party] gets expert advice."

May told CBC News her report was written months ago, was never "definitive" and a lot has changed since then. She said she was trying to help the federal council do its due diligence and not leap to any conclusions that would run "a risk of having a split within the party."

"Anything that was written in a confidential message months ago does not represent my current views," May said today. "We've done more investigation, we have to move toward consensus, and my view throughout has been that my own position was neutral." ...

The interim leader said May's report's findings were significant but should be subjected to an outside review. "It does point to the need for us to have a third party investigate this further if we're going to take any other actions," said Roberts. ...

The Greens' federal council privately voted in August to accept Awasthi's resignation, according to multiple council members. Party president Cooke — who supported keeping Awasthi in the job — resigned immediately afterward, tweeting that "an in-camera (closed doors) decision of council forced me into this decision. ...

Roberts said that vote is in dispute now because it may conflict with a decision made at an earlier council meeting. She would not disclose the nature of that decision, calling it confidential. May said proper notice of the vote wasn't given, the decision contradicted an earlier motion and more time was needed to try to come to a consensus. Multiple council members who spoke to CBC News called it "deeply disturbing" that party executives did not respect that vote.

The situation has also affected the Green leadership race. Haddad said she was encouraged by other Green members to send a letter supporting Awasthi and saying he had created a safe space in the party for individuals like herself — an immigrant lesbian born in Syria. Later, she said, she thought twice about the initial letter and sent a second one saying that the party should embrace a zero tolerance policy on workplace harassment. ...

Green Party member Bonnie North told CBC News she was subjected to sexual harassment and sexual assault during her two decades in the Canadian Armed Forces. She calls the Greens vetting process one of "wild incompetence." ...

May's local campaign manager in the last election, Michael Strumberger, recently stepped away from the Greens after six years. He said the party has a problem with top-down, opaque decision-making. "There's no accountability," said Strumberger. "Members don't have a lot of visibility into the decisions that are made. More and more, our federal council, our governing board is operating in-camera and obviously not reporting what happens. So that's a pattern."

Awasthi's probationary period at work expires on Sunday — the day after the new leader will be announced.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-divide-over-executive-direc...

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Do you mean the fact that she thinks China is an imperial threat. None of what I heard is internationalist it is all our Canadian version of exceptionalism. Who the fuck are these Canadian politicians to be saying we should punish other countries for human rights abuses. The hypocrisy is disgusting and appalling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBFBxcjVjc&t=12s

No. I mean the fact that she believes her family will suffer, perhaps be killed, if she doesn't say what China wants her to say. Are you saying that Kuttner is only saying that in order to demonize China? 

I don't see what it has to do with indigenous people. 

You missed my point so I will try to clarify. Canadian politicians should just shut their fucking mouths about other countries when our track record on human rights is that we are engaged in an ongoing genocide. Who the fuck is she or any or the other Green candidates to lecture other countries on "human rights" abuses. However the fact that you think that a politician for a third rate party in Canada making comments would attract deadly reprisals against her family is indeed demonization.

Pondering

edited to correct pronouns as Kuttner is non-binary

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You missed my point so I will try to clarify. Canadian politicians should just shut their fucking mouths about other countries when our track record on human rights is that we are engaged in an ongoing genocide. Who the fuck is she or any or the other Green candidates to lecture other countries on "human rights" abuses. However the fact that you think that a politician for a third rate party in Canada making comments would attract deadly reprisals against her family is indeed demonization.

You are way missing the point here. Kuttner isn't criticizing China. They was asked about China and declined to answer on the basis of having family in Hong Kong. The implication of course is that something could happen to them I don't know what but obviously not something good. That doesn't seem far-fetched to me. What do you think Kuttner meant? Did you bother to watch the clip? See Kuttner's discomfort? They has the right to fear for their family without being accused of demonization. 

Our treatment of indigenous peoples is horrible but Kuttner isn't responsible for that and they supports indigenous rights.  I think Kuttner has a right to care about their family too. Kuttner is a person as well as a politician. 

Just because some people have ulterior motives for criticizing China doesn't mean everyone criticizing China is doing the same. 

When we are critical of the US does that mean we are demonizing them? For example, condemning them for separating children from their families at the border among about a gazillion sins. It seems to me China does have human rights issues. So does Saudi Arabia but we are selling them weapons. We are involved in criminal military action against countries that are no threat to us or wouldn't be if we didn't overthrow their governments and what not. Our guilt doesn't confer innocence on them. 

Pondering

I wonder why so many people are insistent on keeping Prateek Awasthi in the position of Executive Director. If so many people want him gone so badly why wouldn't they just let him go and choose someone else. 

I'm interested in the internal divisions in the party. I knew May had a bit of a rep but I didn't realize just how bad she is. It seems the executive overruled the national council but also that the council was divided. So that's one battle but there is also the attack on Lascaris. 

My sense is that May and her cohorts are losing. For May and Paul to declare, at this point in the race, that Lascaris shouldn't have been allowed to run is a desperate last minute move to make for someone who thinks they are winning. I can't imagine what they expect to come from it this late in the game.

No matter who wins they defied the party officials who allowed him to run. They told him he couldn't talk about it. They must have said the same to May and Paul. 

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Not too long to wait now. The winner will be declared tomorrow. 

 

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

Green party grassroots are much farther left than May and the executive because they passed a BDS resolution that May ignored.  Now May and Paul are accusing Lascaris of anti-seminism on the eve of the vote.  Either they think that they are losing, or they think even if they win Lascaris will remain too powerful. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7373076/green-party-canada-confronts-anti-sem...

“My view and the party’s views are solid on this: to the extent that anyone who is running for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada and who has expressed anti-Semitic views, they shouldn’t have been allowed to run,” May said in an interview this week.

As a former leader — and a relatively popular one at that— May was asked by the party to refrain from endorsing any candidate but she did ask party supporters to financially support Paul’s candidacy as part of a campaign “to help fundraise for candidates who will improve the party’s track record for inclusiveness and diversity.”...

Paul said that she did not think it was appropriate for Lascaris to be a candidate for the party’s leadership.

“Not so much because of what was said, but because of the continuous lack of understanding or recognition of the impact,” she said. “There are people that simply need to be educated. They don’t realize the impact of their words. They might not realize the historical implications of that kind of comment.

“But once … it’s been explained to you, once you’ve been told what the hurt is, if you continue to persist in being unwilling to apologize or to recognize it, then that’s something else altogether.”

That's the category Paul dares to place Lascaris in. May tried to stop Lascaris from running but she was over-ruled because he has a defence.  He was told he couldn't discuss the reason he was initially rejected because the party did not want a big fight over anti-semitism to erupt right before they elected a new leader.

And supporters of Lascaris have complained that May did not abide by a resolution — moved by Lascaris himself — that was adopted by grassroots party members in support of the controversial campaign to “Boycott, Divest, and Sanction” Israeli-owned businesses and assets.

His defence is here:

https://dimitrilascaris.org/2018/09/11/my-response-to-prime-minister-jus...

 

 

Prediction:

If Lascaris is elected leader, May will cross the floor to sit as either an independent(and yes, I know that all three GPC MPS technically sit as independents since the GPC doesn't have official party status) or a Liberal- perhaps standing for the LPC leadership when and if Justin packs it in.

She will also try to talk another GPC MP- probably Jenica Atwin- to join her in defecting, essentially destroying the GPC rather than accepting a Lascaris victory.

Andrew West, the most right-wing GPC candidate, will join the Conservatives- the party that was always his natural home- and will seek, but be repeatedly denied, nomination as a Con candidate at the next federal election.  

Misfit Misfit's picture

Elizabeth May will not join the Liberal party nor run for the leadership of the Liberal party. She was the leader of a political party, the Green Party. She wants to retire from politics. That's why they are having a leadership race right now.

I agree with you that she may decide to leave the Green Party and take another MP with her. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Yes, it is easy to predict that May would rather see the Green Party cease to exist than that it go ecosocialist. She is a hard core neoliberal with a very distorted view of the world.

Pondering

Leadership coverage about to begin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuM7UOYxiOQ&ab_channel=CBCNews

 

Ken Burch

They're running a May tribute film at the moment...it's telling that Brian Mulroney is repeated quoted in it.

 

Pondering

I think it is funny they are saying how good she is at working across party lines while she can't accept the left within the party.

Grenier referred to the centre-left field being crowded because that is where the Liberals, Greens and NDP are. 

Ken Burch

What is the expectation as to how long the count will take?

If 35,000 people or so voted, isn't that comparable to the total votes cast in a single federal riding or two to three provincial ridings?  

Also, how much time is the distribution of preferences likely to add to the count?

Pondering

Voting is ending as we speak and the first results are expect for 7:30 which I doubt will be met. 

It is predicted that no one will win on the first ballot. I fear that Paul will get a lot of second choice votes.

Ken Burch

The CBC  has disabled the chat AND commenting on the live feed.  Sounds like they're expecting a controversial, possibly disputed result.

Does anyone know if the leadership candidates in some space near this convention? 

Also, does it look as though May is just going to fill until whenever the results are announced?

Ken Burch

It's now been about 50 minutes of nothing but the talking heads "bs" ing until the results start being announced.  Everybody in the CBC control room must be pissed that they don't have a hockey game to switch to.  

Pondering

Sadly Paul won but it wasn't a sweep. Lascaris held on right to the end. 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sadly Paul won but it wasn't a sweep. Lascaris held on right to the end. 

The two questions now are:

1) What positions will Annamie Paul take on issues where she declined to take a position during the leadership race?

2) How many of the voters who joined the party to vote for either Lascaris or Haddad will stay in the Green Party of Canada, and how many will exit the party when the party when their memberships lapse?

Ken Burch

It looks as though Paul won on the first preference.  Am I seeing that right?

cco

So the Greens will continue to be a religious conservative party, not an ecosocialist one. Jagmeet must be breathing a sigh of relief tonight.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

It looks as though Paul won on the first preference.  Am I seeing that right?

Paul had the most first preference votes, but only by a few hundred votes over Lascaris, and on one of the middle rounds Lascaris briefly pulled ahead of Paul. Paul almost doubled her vote from the first to the final round, with her biggest increase coming in the final round when the Murray votes went overwhelmingly to Paul.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

cco wrote:
So the Greens will continue to be a religious conservative party, not an ecosocialist one. Jagmeet must be breathing a sigh of relief tonight.

..agreed. both singh and the cabal

Pondering

It went around 5 or 6 rounds before she won and Lascaris was in first position at times. She won with 12,000 votes out of about 23,000 votes with Lascaris in second place.

No they will not be a "religious conservative" party.  The Green Party supported basic income and pharmacare before the other parties. Paul is not my choice by a long shot but she isn't a right-winger either nor does she control the party the way that May did in the past. That control slipped before May even stepped down. 

The 10K or so members who voted for Lascaris, an open eco-socialist, shows that it is not May's party. I didn't get to vote but I am not going anywhere. I will remain a member and I will continue to support Lascaris and Haddad.

This was just the first round not the war. We are still much much much closer to taking over the Green Party than we are the NDP.

Even if people want to continue voting for and supporting financially the NDP party I implore you to join the Green Party to continue its transformation. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

This was just the first round not the war. We are still much much much closer to taking over the Green Party than we are the NDP.

Even if people want to continue voting for and supporting financially the NDP party I implore you to join the Green Party to continue its transformation. 

The proof will be in the next election. If the new leader and the leadership hopefuls cannot become MP's there is nothing to build on. Methinks that mother nature will intervene to make our dysfunctional political system irrelevant long before they even get a significant caucus .

How many election cycles do you predict it will take to elect a Green government?

Ken Burch

Andrew West took a whopping 532 votes on the first preference.  

If you thought he was snide and bitter BEFORE...

Ken Burch

Surprisingly strong showing for Courtney Howard, who wasn't eliminated until the seventh round and finished a respectable third with 5,824 votes.

Pages