Green Party coup

592 posts / 0 new
Last post
laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Agreed, Ken and Kropotkin.

nicky

Ken, why should the NDP step down in Nanaimo?

It is an historic NDP seat, one that returned Tommy Douglas.
 

The Greens are tanking everywhere. Even Bernier's party has more support.

One lesson of this election is that former Green voters seem to be going Largely  to the NDP.

it is important to future NDP growth to marginalize the Greens. The best way to do this is to eradicate them from Parliament.
 

 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken, why should the NDP step down in Nanaimo?

It is an historic NDP seat, one that returned Tommy Douglas.
 

The Greens are tanking everywhere. Even Bernier's party has more support.

One lesson of this election is that former Green voters seem to be going Largely  to the NDP.

it is important to future NDP growth to marginalize the Greens. The best way to do this is to eradicate them from Parliament.
 

 

Because Manley never deserved what the NDP did to him, and it would right a wrong on that without doing any real harm.   The NDP should be trying to defeat reactionaries, not people of conscience.

As to the Greens under Paul- I have no love for her or what she has done to the party, but it's enough that they are tanking everywhere else.  Manley is the one Green riding where an NDP gain would be a sad thing for progressive politics.

 

jerrym

Ken Burch wrote:

nicky wrote:

Ken, why should the NDP step down in Nanaimo?

It is an historic NDP seat, one that returned Tommy Douglas.
 

The Greens are tanking everywhere. Even Bernier's party has more support.

One lesson of this election is that former Green voters seem to be going Largely  to the NDP.

it is important to future NDP growth to marginalize the Greens. The best way to do this is to eradicate them from Parliament.
 

 

As to the Greens under Paul- I have no love for her or what she has done to the party, but it's enough that the NDP is tanking everywhere else.

Do you mean the Greens are tanking everywhere else? The NDP is actually higher in the polls than in any election except 2011.

nicky

Just wishful thinking on Ken's part.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Just wishful thinking on Ken's part.

I MEANT the Greens, obviously.  It was just a typo. I don't wish to see the NDP tank in this election.   I've corrected that one now, and will ask you to edit your response to reflect that.

Manley is the one exception I make to generally hoping the NDP makes gains, because having his riding go NDP instead could only be considered something of a swing to the right.  I'm sure the NDP candidate is mundanely somewhat progressive, but she wouldn't have been allowed the nomination by the party bureaucracy unless she agreed not to be a voice of conscience on the issues of the day.

NDPP

Paul Manly MP

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1434697752169046016

"We Canadians are very fortunate to have Paul Manly in our Parliament. You can help him stay there by volunteering for his campaign. For more information..."

contrarianna

melovesproles wrote:

....However, to your first point, that's been my worry about the NDP's fortunes on Vancouver Island this election....

My worry (and expectation) is rather different for Vancouver Island; that the NDP's Randall Garrison will win again. Unfortunately, it's likely a safe seat for Garrison in the Canadian Forces Base community.

Canada's pre-eminent neocon warmonger Terry Glavin (who still thinks the criminal invasion of Iraq was a good idea) singled out Garrison for special praise in the transitional phase of the NDP's embrace of NATO aggression:

Unusual NDPer backs international missions
by Terry Glavin on November 24th, 2005 at 9:00 AM

Garrison is a new and different sort of New Democrat. He isn't afraid to say this: "An independent [Sic!] foreign policy requires a strong military." ...

Here's how Garrison answers those questions that stump most New Democrats: "The NDP hasn't been very clear about Afghanistan." Generally, the NDP gives a thumbs-up to Canada's participation in NATO's United Nations-sanctioned mission there but a thumbs-down to Canadian military involvement with the Americans' "Enduring Freedom" operations in the Kandahar area-at least until Defence Minister Graham is more forthcoming with a justification.
....
On Haiti, Garrison is refreshingly candid. He's got little time for what he calls the "imperialist conspiracy" analysis of the implosion of civil and democratic order in the final days of Jean-Baptiste Aristide's regime last year. The UN has sanctioned the intervention that Canadian soldiers are involved with in Haiti, and Garrison is for it....

https://www.straight.com/article/unusual-ndper-backs-international-missions

But now, far from being "unusual" for the NDP elite, Garrison Foreign Policy Critic is the central representative of NDP's US-led imperial policy.

 January 8, 2021 · 09:32
Why isn’t NDP critic Randall Garrison questioning $200 billion navy procurement?

https://yvesengler.com/2021/01/08/why-isnt-ndp-critic-randall-garrison-q...

NDP MP Randall Garrison’s disgraceful anti-Palestinian politics
....
As I detail here, here, here, and here, Garrison’s anti-Palestinian activities go beyond his role as vice-chair of CIIG. Adding to this pattern, Garrison attended last week’s World Jewish Congress meeting in Ottawa. The CIJA-sponsored event passed a series of resolutions targeting Iran, backing Israel’s violence in Gaza and smearing Palestine solidarity activists. The conference also included US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, who studied and was a soldier in a West Bank settlement and pushed to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Last week Garrison ‘liked’ his CIIG executive colleague’s tweet claiming the Palestinian civil-society-led Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement is racist. ...

https://yvesengler.com/2019/05/21/ndp-mp-randall-garrisons-disgraceful-a...

Despite being the NDP parliamentary elite's representative, it's doubtful he is the choice of any NDPer's who have  ethics:

 June 18, 2021 · 13:08
NDP defence critic ignores party policy

...Why does the NDP defence critic promote militarism and anti-Palestinian racism? Shouldn’t all critics promote their party’s policies? And if they don’t, what should the party leader do?

Randall Garrison complained to the Hill Times that the government’s recent budget didn’t devote enough to the military. In “Opposition MPs say they’re worried about lack of defence spending in budget, as experts to future of NORAD” he’s quoted saying: “Defence doesn’t change just because there’s a pandemic. … We spent a decade not providing the military with an adequate operating budget to do the work we already asked them to do. It’s time to fix that.”

Garrison has repeatedly demanded more resources for the military, which has more than 10 times the budget of Environment and Climate Change Canada. When the Liberals announced a 70 per cent increase in military spending in 2017 Garrison criticized the announcement for not putting up more money immediately, bemoaning (incorrectly) that “the money you’re proposing will not keep pace with the rate of inflation.”....

https://yvesengler.com/2021/06/18/ndp-defence-critic-ignores-party-policy/

Anybody But Garrison would be better than approval of the current foreign policy representative of Canada's "progressive" NDP.

 

NDPP

Good post. But Hill & Knowlton thinks RG is just fine.

melovesproles

contrarianna wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

....However, to your first point, that's been my worry about the NDP's fortunes on Vancouver Island this election....

My worry (and expectation) is rather different for Vancouver Island; that the NDP's Randall Garrison will win again. Unfortunately, it's likely a safe seat for Garrison in the Canadian Forces Base community.

Canada's pre-eminent neocon warmonger Terry Glavin (who still thinks the criminal invasion of Iraq was a good idea) singled out Garrison for special praise in the transitional phase of the NDP's embrace of NATO aggression:

Unusual NDPer backs international missions
by Terry Glavin on November 24th, 2005 at 9:00 AM

Garrison is a new and different sort of New Democrat. He isn't afraid to say this: "An independent [Sic!] foreign policy requires a strong military." ...

Yeah Garrison sucks and Glavin is a disgusting POS. But like you say, it is going to be extremely hard to get a candidate who is not a militarist elected in Esquimalt seeing as that is the big employer. But yes I would love to see Garrison defeated. Not sure I agree Frost or Anderson would be an improvement but for sure Harley Gordon, the Green candidate sounds like a big upgrapde.

In my riding the Conservative candidate, who is the only candidate with a chance to unseat the NDP MP is a full-on militarist. Here is some of her bio:

Born in Ottawa and raised in a military family, Mary was inspired to follow in her father's footsteps and serve her country. She was among a small cadre of tenacious young women who were part of the eight class at the Royal Military College of Canad, in Kingston, with female cadets.

Mary graduated from RMC with a bachelor's degree in Business and Commerce and served as an Air Traffic Controller for several years. But it was her passion for community engagement and promoting the mission and values of Canada's service men and women that prompted Mary to switch to the Public Affairs Branch. This new responisibility took her around the world, including a tour in the Arabian Gulf as part of the US-led coalition force on the war on terrorism.

I promised myself I wouldn't vote for the NDP because they have such shitty foreign policy positions. I joined the Green Party to vote for Lascaris so I could have a party that I could support in good conscience. That obviously hasn't happened. The race here is between a decent NDP MP and a Conservative who brags about helping the US invasion of Iraq. I still don't know how I'm going to vote (to spoil or not to spoil) but I know I'm not going to feel good about it.

nicky

Ken writes of the NDP candidate in Nanaimo:

"  I'm sure the NDP candidate is mundanely somewhat progressive, but she wouldn't have been allowed the nomination by the party bureaucracy unless she agreed not to be a voice of conscience on the issues of the day."

Did she have to sign something in writing? Does every NDP candidate? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

kropotkin1951

Frankly Ken you do a disservice to Lisa Maria Barron.

The local NDP membership voted for Lisa Marie Barron as the Nanaimo-Ladysmith candidate for the next election. Barron is vice-chairperson of the Nanaimo Ladysmith Public Schools board of education.

According to a press release from the constituency association, Barron, a longtime Nanaimo resident, is working on her masters degree in community development at the University of Victoria and works in substance abuse and addictions, conducting community and program development.

 

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Frankly Ken you do a disservice to Lisa Maria Barron.

The local NDP membership voted for Lisa Marie Barron as the Nanaimo-Ladysmith candidate for the next election. Barron is vice-chairperson of the Nanaimo Ladysmith Public Schools board of education.

According to a press release from the constituency association, Barron, a longtime Nanaimo resident, is working on her masters degree in community development at the University of Victoria and works in substance abuse and addictions, conducting community and program development.

 

For the record, I didn't say she was unqualified for the job and would gladly support her against any Con or Liberal candidate or incumbent.  My comment should be taken as being about the relatively narrow range of view that are tolerated among NDP candidates now. 

It's fair to ask...would a Svend Robinson or a Libby Davies, coming in new today, be allowed to be nominated as an NDP candidate?  What about Niki Ashton, had she not already held her current riding through numerous elections?  Would a Rosemary Browne even be allowed a provincial nomination now?  

 

Ken Burch

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Frankly Ken you do a disservice to Lisa Maria Barron.

The local NDP membership voted for Lisa Marie Barron as the Nanaimo-Ladysmith candidate for the next election. Barron is vice-chairperson of the Nanaimo Ladysmith Public Schools board of education.

According to a press release from the constituency association, Barron, a longtime Nanaimo resident, is working on her masters degree in community development at the University of Victoria and works in substance abuse and addictions, conducting community and program development.

 

For the record, I didn't say she was unqualified for the job and would gladly support her against any Con or Liberal candidate or incumbent.  My comment should be taken as being about the relatively narrow range of view that are tolerated among NDP candidates now. 

It's fair to ask...would a Svend Robinson or a Libby Davies, coming in new today, be allowed to be nominated as an NDP candidate?  What about Niki Ashton, had she not already held her current riding through numerous elections?  Would a Rosemary Browne even be allowed a provincial nomination now?  

 

Ken Burch

For that matter, would the Tommy Douglas that brought in Medicare in Saskatchewan and later heroically opposed Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act to round up leftists during the October Crisis be tolerated within what NDPP has aptly called "The Hill and Knowlton NDP"?

Will the days when MPs for that party were allowed to be voices of conscience in and out of Parliament ever return?

nicky

You may have forgotten, Ken, but Svend Robinson was an NDP candidate in the last election.

sorry if that inconvenient fact derails your blinkered preferred narrative.

contrarianna

melovesproles wrote:

....I promised myself I wouldn't vote for the NDP because they have such shitty foreign policy positions. I joined the Green Party to vote for Lascaris so I could have a party that I could support in good conscience. That obviously hasn't happened. The race here is between a decent NDP MP and a Conservative who brags about helping the US invasion of Iraq. I still don't know how I'm going to vote (to spoil or not to spoil) but I know I'm not going to feel good about it.

Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your posts here.

kropotkin1951

contrarianna wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

....I promised myself I wouldn't vote for the NDP because they have such shitty foreign policy positions. I joined the Green Party to vote for Lascaris so I could have a party that I could support in good conscience. That obviously hasn't happened. The race here is between a decent NDP MP and a Conservative who brags about helping the US invasion of Iraq. I still don't know how I'm going to vote (to spoil or not to spoil) but I know I'm not going to feel good about it.

Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your posts here.

I also appreciate your insights. I have always voted because I mostly agreed with my Conservative parents view that if you don't vote you can't bitch about the government. Rather than spoiling my ballot I think I may be voting for a person I know personally and actually agree with pretty much all of her views. Here is a piece about her from the last election. She has run in this riding for decades.

https://www.mycomoxvalleynow.com/58558/marxist-leninist-barbara-biley-to...

 

melovesproles

contrarianna wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

....I promised myself I wouldn't vote for the NDP because they have such shitty foreign policy positions. I joined the Green Party to vote for Lascaris so I could have a party that I could support in good conscience. That obviously hasn't happened. The race here is between a decent NDP MP and a Conservative who brags about helping the US invasion of Iraq. I still don't know how I'm going to vote (to spoil or not to spoil) but I know I'm not going to feel good about it.

Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your posts here.

Thanks, I've learned a lot from your posts over the years.

melovesproles

kropotkin1951 wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

....I promised myself I wouldn't vote for the NDP because they have such shitty foreign policy positions. I joined the Green Party to vote for Lascaris so I could have a party that I could support in good conscience. That obviously hasn't happened. The race here is between a decent NDP MP and a Conservative who brags about helping the US invasion of Iraq. I still don't know how I'm going to vote (to spoil or not to spoil) but I know I'm not going to feel good about it.

Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your posts here.

I also appreciate your insights. I have always voted because I mostly agreed with my Conservative parents view that if you don't vote you can't bitch about the government. Rather than spoiling my ballot I think I may be voting for a person I know personally and actually agree with pretty much all of her views. Here is a piece about her from the last election. She has run in this riding for decades.

https://www.mycomoxvalleynow.com/58558/marxist-leninist-barbara-biley-to...

 

I really appreciate your posts as well. It's been nice to have good sources of information and experience on a discussion forum like this.

I appreciate that you vouch for Barbara Biley. I was looking at her candidacy and it was hard to find much out. It all sounds better than the other options. This is the first election I have felt this pissed off about my lack of choice but it would feel better to vote for a person than just spoil or not vote. I've always accepted that I'm usually not going to get my perfect candidate and that voting the way that would allow the best possible outcome (or at least send a message) is mostly inconsequential but a small part of being a citizen and at times harm reduction. After watching Singh tonight cite the importance of "diplomacy" and then call out Trudeau for not being there to vote on the China "genocide" grandstanding in Parliament, I've gotten over any doubts I had about not voting NDP.

NDPP

This election, Greens are lending their votes to Avi Lewis

https://www.avilewis.ca/greens4avi

A good prospect. Perhaps he can improve things in the NDP such as Israel/Palestine or the dark stain of Hill & Knowlton's guiding hand.

NorthReport

I know Paul, who is an international human rights lawyer, is not popular here, but she is a perfect fit for the Green leadership, and last nite she erased any doubts that she will not continue on as the Green leader.

NDPP

Her pro-Israel zionism and other dangerous foreign policy proclivities should preclude her leadership of a party many hope could become a progressive alternative to the existing dismal political choices.

NorthReport

Exactly, but Paul cemented her position as the Green leader last nite, regardless if the Greens don't even win one riding in the upcoming September 20th election.

cco

You think she can lead her caucus to defeat and still hold onto her position as leader? It worked for Jagmeet Singh, I guess. Who cares about actual votes if the pundits approve?

NDPP

Actually, she would probably find a natural and congenial home in the present political culture of the ndp. Even one of CBC's talking heads after one of the debates, an ex CON MP, praised her schtick.

NorthReport

How many federal elections was Jack Layton involved in before the NDP became Canada's Official Opposition?

cco wrote:
You think she can lead her caucus to defeat and still hold onto her position as leader? It worked for Jagmeet Singh, I guess. Who cares about actual votes if the pundits approve?

cco

Every election Layton was leader for delivered better results than the previous one. Mulcair got turfed for taking the party from 2nd to 3rd place, while Singh took it to 4th and hasn't faced any serious challenge, because...he's better at moving goalposts, I suppose. Paul has taken her party down to 6th place in the polls, behind a party that's never won a seat. Barring a major swing in the next week, either Elizabeth May will get reelected as the only Green MP, in which case she will be the leader again, or she'll be defeated, in which case Paul will be telling Green members to literally settle for nothing.

Ciabatta2

There is a good chance that Manley keeps his seat and Morrice is elected in Kitchener Centre. I still think Paul has a shot at hers, though that's a slimmer likelihood.

kropotkin1951

cco wrote:
Every election Layton was leader for delivered better results than the previous one. Mulcair got turfed for taking the party from 2nd to 3rd place, while Singh took it to 4th and hasn't faced any serious challenge, because...he's better at moving goalposts, I suppose. Paul has taken her party down to 6th place in the polls, behind a party that's never won a seat. Barring a major swing in the next week, either Elizabeth May will get reelected as the only Green MP, in which case she will be the leader again, or she'll be defeated, in which case Paul will be telling Green members to literally settle for nothing.

I agree with this but I would not leave out the possibility that the voters in Kitchener might send a Green entrepreneur to Ottawa and the white knight will save the Greens from oblivion and Paul.

kropotkin1951

Ciabatta2 wrote:

There is a good chance that Manley keeps his seat and Morrice is elected in Kitchener Centre. I still think Paul has a shot at hers, though that's a slimmer likelihood.

I would agree the Greens will likely hold the VI ridings and maybe add Kitchener. The worst thing for the party would be if Paul wins her riding because it will rip itself apart. If she loses she will face a leadership race and the Greens will get a Morrice versus Lascaris race. Entrepreneurial solutions versus eco-socialism. Unfortunately the sitting MP gets a major edge in that battle.

Ken Burch

NorthReport wrote:
Exactly, but Paul cemented her position as the Green leader last nite, regardless if the Greens don't even win one riding in the upcoming September 20th election.

I seriously doubt ANY party would let a leader who provoked one of their  MPs to cross the floor,  lost their other seats and couldn't win in her own riding stay on as leader.

 

Pondering

I look forward to voting Annamie Paul out if she doesn't resign which she should do soon if she doesn't want further humiliation. 

She will definitely be held responsible for the disarray that the party is in not only electorally but internally and financially. 

I'm looking even more forward to the next leadership race. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

There is a good chance that Manley keeps his seat and Morrice is elected in Kitchener Centre. I still think Paul has a shot at hers, though that's a slimmer likelihood.

I would agree the Greens will likely hold the VI ridings and maybe add Kitchener. The worst thing for the party would be if Paul wins her riding because it will rip itself apart. If she loses she will face a leadership race and the Greens will get a Morrice versus Lascaris race. Entrepreneurial solutions versus eco-socialism. Unfortunately the sitting MP gets a major edge in that battle.

They do, but Lascaris has a strong base. He only lost by 2K votes. I don't think eco-socialists will flip easily. Paul won with May campaigning for her while the party was still strong and had money. 

Now the party is practically bankrupt. They just put a plug in the drain. They didn't refill the tub and my guess is donations are going to be few. Traditional campaigning will be limited. May wasted a lot of political capital on Paul. 

Eco-socialists are accustomed to poverty and skew much younger so are accessable through social media. Eco-socialists will not win by converting existing Green members but by overwhelming them with new young members. Members 16 years and older can vote and can do it online. Colleges and universities are the hunting grounds as well as any groups fighting for the homeless, for Palestinians, for income redistribution.

It's a hostile takeover of the party not a political transformation of its current membership or leadership.  It will take effort but I think Lascaris is in a very good position to win the next race if enough new members are signed up. 

Pondering

melovesproles wrote:

I really appreciate your posts as well. It's been nice to have good sources of information and experience on a discussion forum like this.

I too have found him to be a wealth of information but I am upset with him over China and the MSM. If I can't trust even the basic facts of the MSM how do I choose what to believe? How do I defend what I choose to believe? How do I condemn Qanon if we all just choose what to believe?

Pondering

nicky wrote:

Ken, why should the NDP step down in Nanaimo?

It is an historic NDP seat, one that returned Tommy Douglas.
 

The Greens are tanking everywhere. Even Bernier's party has more support.

One lesson of this election is that former Green voters seem to be going Largely  to the NDP.

it is important to future NDP growth to marginalize the Greens. The best way to do this is to eradicate them from Parliament.
 

 

Seriously Nicky, it's like the NDP is more important to you than progressive politics. 

nicky

I equate progressive politics in Canada with the NDP.

I equate the Greens with pseudo progressive politics and siphoning off enough votes for the Cons and Libs to win seats. that's why I'm glad the Greens did so dismally and that Manley was ousted.

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

I look forward to voting Annamie Paul out if she doesn't resign which she should do soon if she doesn't want further humiliation. 

She will definitely be held responsible for the disarray that the party is in not only electorally but internally and financially. 

I'm looking even more forward to the next leadership race. 

It tells you all you need to know about Paul that, as federal Green leader, she didn't set foot in B.C., let alone on Vancouver Island, until four days before the election, and focused almost entirely 'til then on what she knew was a doomed fight to try and get elected in Toronto Centre- and ended up reducing her vote share there from 32% to just over 8%.

melovesproles

Pondering wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

I really appreciate your posts as well. It's been nice to have good sources of information and experience on a discussion forum like this.

I too have found him to be a wealth of information but I am upset with him over China and the MSM. If I can't trust even the basic facts of the MSM how do I choose what to believe? How do I defend what I choose to believe? How do I condemn Qanon if we all just choose what to believe?

This is not directed at you because I don't know your beliefs on the subject but I honestly think "believing" the MSM on China shows as much critical thinking as believing in Qanon. 'Orwellian' gets thrown around a lot but the China coverage in Canada is so monotone totalitarian that it would be hard to come up with a better fictional example of the genre. The reason why you never hear any of Kropotkin's points or questions addressed in the MSM is because Canadians are not supposed to think too hard about any of this.

  1. Why did we apprehend Meng? China Bad. Not related to the fact that while Trudeau snickers at Trump at parties, when Trump says jump..
  2. Why did China imprison specifically the two Michaels out of the thousands of Canadians living in China? China bad. Maybe they drew names out of a hat? Has the media come up with a better explaination than that?
  3. Why is China violating the human rights of Uighurs? China bad. Definitely not related to how Islamic fundamentalism has been used by the West as a chess piece in destabilizing Central Asia and the Middle East.

This isn't some unimportant foreign policy wonk issue either. We aren't solving climate change without international cooperation with China. And we aren't improving the human rights of Uighurs without actual diplomacy-which means finding out what China's real concerns are and seeing if they can be addressed in a way that can get the situation to change. The MSM and all of our politicians are actively working against both of those outcomes.

The MSM and the conspiracy theorists are two sides of the same coin and they absolutely feed off of each other. We aren't going to fix the latter without first addressing the former. There is a good reason we are living in an age of mistrust. If you think it is not related to the MSM, you are not paying attention.

Pondering

melovesproles wrote:

Pondering wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

I really appreciate your posts as well. It's been nice to have good sources of information and experience on a discussion forum like this.

I too have found him to be a wealth of information but I am upset with him over China and the MSM. If I can't trust even the basic facts of the MSM how do I choose what to believe? How do I defend what I choose to believe? How do I condemn Qanon if we all just choose what to believe?

This is not directed at you because I don't know your beliefs on the subject but I honestly think "believing" the MSM on China shows as much critical thinking as believing in Qanon. 'Orwellian' gets thrown around a lot but the China coverage in Canada is so monotone totalitarian that it would be hard to come up with a better fictional example of the genre. The reason why you never hear any of Kropotkin's points or questions addressed in the MSM is because Canadians are not supposed to think too hard about any of this.

  1. Why did we apprehend Meng? China Bad. Not related to the fact that while Trudeau snickers at Trump at parties, when Trump says jump..
  2. Why did China imprison specifically the two Michaels out of the thousands of Canadians living in China? China bad. Maybe they drew names out of a hat? Has the media come up with a better explaination than that?
  3. Why is China violating the human rights of Uighurs? China bad. Definitely not related to how Islamic fundamentalism has been used by the West as a chess piece in destabilizing Central Asia and the Middle East.

This isn't some unimportant foreign policy wonk issue either. We aren't solving climate change without international cooperation with China. And we aren't improving the human rights of Uighurs without actual diplomacy-which means finding out what China's real concerns are and seeing if they can be addressed in a way that can get the situation to change. The MSM and all of our politicians are actively working against both of those outcomes.

The MSM and the conspiracy theorists are two sides of the same coin and they absolutely feed off of each other. We aren't going to fix the latter without first addressing the former. There is a good reason we are living in an age of mistrust. If you think it is not related to the MSM, you are not paying attention.

Thank-you so much for taking the time to write this.  It's going to take me a bit to address it with the seriousness it deserves. 

kropotkin1951

melovesproles wrote:

This isn't some unimportant foreign policy wonk issue either. We aren't solving climate change without international cooperation with China. And we aren't improving the human rights of Uighurs without actual diplomacy-which means finding out what China's real concerns are and seeing if they can be addressed in a way that can get the situation to change. The MSM and all of our politicians are actively working against both of those outcomes.

The MSM and the conspiracy theorists are two sides of the same coin and they absolutely feed off of each other. We aren't going to fix the latter without first addressing the former. There is a good reason we are living in an age of mistrust. If you think it is not related to the MSM, you are not paying attention.

I agree with this although I think the Uyghur problem is like our indigenous genocide problem and Canadians like to berate China but are not too keen on being denigrated for our ongoing genocidal practices. I believe in the UN declaration of none-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. If you look at the history since we went away from it in destroying Yugoslavia it is clear that intervention into other countries is a remedy that is always more deadly to the civilians than the disease that we are supposedly trying to cure.

Pages