The NDP convention revisited

Is there actually a list of the approved resolutions anywhere? They certainly aren't on the NDP's [url=http://www.ndp.ca/convention']convention website[/url]

It's long annoyed me that even though the NDP is supposed to be governed by party resolutions (which are supposed to remain in effect for three successive conventions) it's virtually impossible to get a copy of the resolutions currently "in force". This time even the manual of proposed resolutions was taken off the website and was inaccessible to non-delegates until it was "leaked" by a hostile blogger.

i wasn't at the convention, so i was going to bite my tongue at the negative generalities expressed in this article, which really could be edited to say Liberal or Conservative with appropriate name changes, and it would fit just fine.

I will comment on this though:

quote:

---

...One delegate describes Layton appearing at a meeting of farmers in Saskatchewan wearing a plaid shirt and wranglers. Layton seems to want to fit in and be liked wherever he goes...

---

Ever since Jack was elected leader, there have been people in the party who have been pissed about it, particularly the west, calling Jack a "latte sipping socialist", "slick", "big city politician" etc. This is an extension of that obviously and so patently silly that i have to laugh. If you should run into Layton anywhere except parliament or an offical event where "business attire" is required (whether you agree with that requirment or not), more than likely he is wearing a work shirt and jeans and boots of some sort. Pretty casual. not contrived at all.

If party members continue to fill thier critiques of Layton's leadership with petty personal observations about his appearance or speaking style as a reason to be disgruntled, after 92% of the delegates voted to support his leadership, those critiques will be dismissed as petty personal disgruntlement and the legitimate concerns will be lost, quite frankly.

As for the convention being well run, and organised being an issue.....huh? If the party ever wants a crack at governing the country, it will have to be well run, litterally, as well as perceptually by the media and public. If that turns off the unpolished and disorganised, well too bad i say. If we need to present a "slick" and focused message to actually gain office, well i say that the means justify the end, which is gaining office and actually effecting change at a national legislative level. ha, i can't wait for the vitriol to start regarding my thoughts here. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

I don't mind Layton at all, but at the same time, I can apreciate Corvin's analysis about the cult of personality. Isn't that why Layton got elected though? Because he was someone who had "visibility?"

I dunno, I was at the NDYC convention where we all agreed that the age of consent nonsense should never have got through our party. I'm curious to know how that happened. Does anybody know? It doesn't seem like the typical sort of thing that our party would get behind...

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
[b]
If party members continue to fill thier critiques of Layton's leadership with petty personal observations about his appearance or speaking style as a reason to be disgruntled, after 92% of the delegates voted to support his leadership, those critiques will be dismissed as petty personal disgruntlement and the legitimate concerns will be lost, quite frankly.[/b]

---

But that moustache!

quote:

---

Originally posted by redflag:
[b]I dunno, I was at the NDYC convention where we all agreed that the age of consent nonsense should never have got through our party. I'm curious to know how that happened. Does anybody know? It doesn't seem like the typical sort of thing that our party would get behind...[/b]

---

Well, most of the youth I talked to about the issue didn't seem to know the details of the Conservative policy that they were opposed to. Especially the changes to the close in age exemption. While increasing age of consent certainly isn't a priority (which is why caucus members have opposed the previous private members bills and motions on the topic), when it is combined with the significant change in the close in age exemption the legislation isn't worth fighting against.

[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]

[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]It's long annoyed me that even though the NDP is supposed to be governed by party resolutions (which are supposed to remain in effect for three successive conventions) it's virtually impossible [/b]

---

I understand that there is a move to have the "policy book" upated and maintained better.

We'll see if this really happends or not.

I just read the full article by Corvin Russell now. Wow. How infuriating. The youth delegates must just be frothing at such underhanded tactics.

Shame.

Oh, and I love this:

quote:

---

Comartin expresses “dismay at the level of lack of knowledge” shown by many of the youth and queer speakers. Comartin says he consulted widely with prosecutors and defence attorneys before taking his position on the law. I ask if he also consulted with youth and youth advocates, the people the law is supposed to help. He says yes, and that their opinions were split — for example, he says, Catholic youth groups support the law.

---

Did he ask what Focus on the Family thinks as well? How about The Pat Robertson Club For Kids? Maybe he should ask a few ex-gay teen support groups while he's at it.

Christ almighty. Since when is it an NDP principle for old, white, straight social conservative men to stifle the voices of youth and sexual minorities in the party?

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[QBThe youth delegates must just be frothing at such underhanded tactics.

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ][/QB]

---

To me fair, not all 250 youth delegates went to that panel. Nor were all 250 youth delegates for the resolution. I know quite a few that didn't vote either way at the youth convention

Everyone knew it was going to be a close vote, and the youth convention was told that and told that if you care about the issue to go to that panel. Had all 250 youth delegates done that or even half, the resolution would have passed.

That's not to say that it wasn't wrong for NDP staffers to try and get a resolution voted down, but the story made it sound like all the youth were on side, when they weren't

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: ouroboros ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ouroboros:
I know quite a few that didn't vote either way at the youth convention

That's funny. Because there was no vote on the age of consent at the youth convention.

---

I thought there was an emergency resolution on the age of consent. I don't have the emergency resolutions in my package however so I can't back that up.

quote:

---

Everyone knew it was going to be a close vote, and the youth convention was told that and told that if you care about the issue to go to that panel.

That's also funny, because the youth convention wasn't told that. Are you sure you were at the right convention?

---

I disagree. After the Jane Doe's address someone talked about the resolution.

quote:

---

the story made it sound like all the youth were on side, when they weren't

No one's saying all the youth were on side, but judging from the reaction of youth delegates to Jane Doe's comments, and the questions that were raised in the NDYC elections, there was clearly an overwhelming majority of youth delegates in favour of this resolution, and angered by the party's tactics.

---

I think they are right to be angry.

However the story said "The youth and LGBT caucuses are pushing a resolution that will oppose the Conservative legislation" That makes it sound like the youth caucuse voted on a position, which according to you they didn't.

Is there nothing else worth writing about regarding the NDP convention beyond the fact that the NDP has essentially taken no hard and fast position on whether or not canada should have the same age of consent as the Netherlands (though a higher AOC than Mexico)

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
[b]As for this... Typical father knows best attitude. If the youth disagree with you, they must not know what they're talking about. The fact is that many organizations (Egale Canada, Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, Child Welfare League, Canadian AIDS Society) are opposed to the legislation [i]even with[/i] the 5-year close-in-age exemption, because it will still affect access to sexual health information, and will still criminalize non-exploitative relationships. Are you suggesting that these organizations are also unfamiliar with the bill?

[ 19 September 2006: Message edited by: spatrioter ][/b]

---

Not at all. I'm suggesting that when discussion turned to the close-in-age exemption and the response was, "I didn't know about that", the individuals I spoke to didn't know about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Is there nothing else worth writing about regarding the NDP convention beyond the fact that the NDP has essentially taken no hard and fast position on whether or not canada should have the same age of consent as the Netherlands (though a higher AOC than Mexico)[/b]

---

Get a clue. The substantive result on the issue is of FAR less importance than the manipulations that produced the result. It's not only young people that are pissed. A friend of mine who is also ancient of days had the same reaction.

That makes it even harder to oppose as the power, in theory at least, lies with the younger party to determine whether or not she or he has been exploited.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
[b]If the arguments against the resolution were so solid, why was the party brass shitting collective bricks trying to prevent it from going to the convention floor?

I could just as easily say that those who opposed the resolution were unfamiliar with the facts, as [url=http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html]current Canadian laws governing age of consent[/url] are already some of the most comprehensive in the world, according to the Department of Justice.

I hope this thread isn't derailed into a debate on the merits of Bill C-22. As jrootham said, the issue here is not the actual legislation, but the party's tactics in stifling debate on the legislation.[/b]

---

I suspect the party brass wasn't really afraid tha t the resolution would pass as much as they were afraid of having NDP members aruging in favour of the resolution in public and on national tv.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
[b]i wasn't at the convention, so i was going to bite my tongue at the negative generalities expressed in this article, which really could be edited to say Liberal or Conservative with appropriate name changes, and it would fit just fine.[/b]

---

I understand that with so many delegates, there has to be some structure to keep things from chaotically disintegrating, but do we really want to go the route of the other parties? How can we honestly claim that the NDP is different from other parties and is actively concerned with people if we emulate anti-democratic tendancies practiced in other parties? Is this what the membership of the party has worked so hard towards?

As for the argument that maybe the party was afraid of being ripped apart over disagreements by the media, are we the only party affected by that? I'm sure that thought has caused other parties to "handle" dissent as well. Perhaps the problem then isn't the way the NDP handled this, but with a media empire looking to exploit weakness and divisions for its own benefit without providing any meaningful information? Maybe this is an issue all parties could work on, regardless of our disagreements in other areas?

quote:

---

Originally posted by redflag:
[b]

Were you trying to say that I missed something?[/b]

---

Well, you asked how the "age of consent nonsense" ever got through the convention, and this article had a long section explaining how that got manoeuvred. I hope babblers will excuse me for quoting it here - and if I totally misunderstood your point, Joshua, then I doubly apologize:

quote:

---

On the Friday, in the panel to prioritize resolutions on equity issues, Joe Comartin, MP for Windsor - Tecumseh and Bob Gallagher, Layton's chief of staff, can be seen frantically trying to stifle resolutions that criticize the NDP caucus' support of Stephen Harper's law and order agenda. Particularly contentious is a resolution on the age of consent. The day before, at the youth convention, keynote speaker Jane Doe fired the young people up by calling the NDP's support of Harper's age of consent law “bullshit,” to huge cheers.

The youth and LGBT caucuses are pushing a resolution that will oppose the Conservative legislation. But Gallagher and Comartin don't want it to hit the convention floor and the eyes of the media. The party will support Harper in Parliament, and they want to avoid the “embarrassment” of a policy driven by the party members who will be most affected by the new law: youth and queers. The resolution has been put 60th on the list by the party management's own pre-convention committee, meaning it will never be heard.

After the youth succeed in prioritizing the resolution to go to the convention floor, Gallagher and Comartin organize against them. Gallagher furiously works his Blackberry to stuff the panel with caucus staff and union friendlies. Caucus members glower at the youth delegates who are arguing for their resolution. At the last minute, MP Jean Crowder moves that it be tabled. Gallagher's people are filing in even after the doors are supposed to have been “tiled.”

With most of caucus and the rent-a-crowd voting for it, the motion to table carries, keeping the resolution off convention floor — to the anger and disgust of youth and LGBT delegates. “There was a lack of fairness in the outcome and the process. It engenders hard feelings when that happens,” says Tannis Bujaczek, outgoing co-chair of New Democratic Youth of Canada.

When I ask Comartin about why the party stuffed the meeting to shut down this resolution, he bristles. At first, he replies that “We're always concerned about any resolutions that would embarrass the party or the leader, and I don't think there's anything improper about that from a democratic standpoint.” But then he disputes the charge that he and Gallagher stacked the vote. The reality, he says, is “just the opposite — there was a concerted effort to keep my resolution from going to a vote. The room initially was stacked by the gay, lesbian, transgendered group and the youth, organized by their leadership to come in and take over that panel for that particular [resolution]. ”

Bujaczek counters that “A lot of interested youth, and a lot of members of the LGBT community who were interested in the issue came to the panel and stayed the entire time, whereas we did see at the end an influx of people coming specifically for that motion [to table the resolution], and I don't think they were there to vote for the Trinity-Spadina resolution [against Harper's age of consent law].”

Comartin expresses “dismay at the level of lack of knowledge” shown by many of the youth and queer speakers. Comartin says he consulted widely with prosecutors and defence attorneys before taking his position on the law. I ask if he also consulted with youth and youth advocates, the people the law is supposed to help. He says yes, and that their opinions were split — for example, he says, Catholic youth groups support the law.

Bujaczek's answer is blunt: this law will have a silencing effect on youth, especially young gay men, that will harm far more people than it can possibly help. “This is not a complex issue — it's a dangerous legislation that is going to hurt people. It's not going to do anything to stop pedophiles. It's only going to criminalize sexual activity of young people, and most severely, young gay men in isolated communities. We need to talk about what it is going to mean for young women seeking sexual services, young gay men in rural communities, people who have older partners in non-exploitative relationships. Young people are going to be afraid to talk to health providers.”

---

[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]

[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Unfortunately the NDP passed two anti-Israel resolutions and Judy W-L was booed by the delegates just because she's pro-Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf:
[b]Unfortunately the NDP passed two anti-Israel resolutions and Judy W-L was booed by the delegates just because she's pro-Israel.[/b]

---

It is called democracy. There is nothing unfortunate about members of a political party adopting views they believe in.

Most people in the party share the view that the invasion and destruction of civilian infrastructure and the bombing of civilians constitutes a war crime. Even the people who took the Israeli advise to flee the area were murdered anyway as they drove down the highway as instructed.

I didn't attend the convention but if I had it would have had one more vote. I don't think it is unfortunate to have a political party that reflects my political views that is why there is more than one party in a democracy.

yeah, you might want to actually try and win a seat first [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Aristotle, you are right it is a delicate balance. I remember thinking that the time is of the convention is not much longer than one of our provincial conventions. I was imagining how long debates could go on. Overall I thought the moderators were fair.

This was my first convention so I can't compare it to another. But John K's post reminded me of something that I don't believe has been articulated here, nor in Corvin's article. The convention was a real learning opportunity. From riding the train with Saskatchewan delegates to hearing the groups and speakers presenting. And from meeting people I might not always agree with. Even now from JohnK's post: how many in urban centres considered that it is now harvest season? I was amazed by the diversity of the party and how it all comes together. An example: I believe that the internet and the party site are valuable tools for growth and connection. I spoke to the assembly to this effect. Another speaker brought up the very valid point that not everyone is connected for a variety of reasons. In my milieu trading email addresses or website info is par for the course. Its important as people working for social justice we acknowledge that buying a computer and internet connection may be not be feasible for some. Just as we know that poorer schools don't have access to the same technical equipment as richer schools.

Its a pretty big tent and there is definitely room and reason for debate and complaint. I don't believe that any of those groups working to be heard will let their issues die. For me personally, I was glad that the Quebec Section finally had a chance to show the rest of the party that it was alive and well. I know from having read some posts on babble that many doubted how real the NDP presence was in Quebec.

PS: And I got a rabble mouse pad!

Hi all,

I just spotted this article linked to from the GPC webpage and was surprised. I suppose the reason might be that it's one more story that the GPC is mentioned in.

Regarding James' post, I met him at the GPC convention. James is a solid young guy and his enthusiasm for positive change was refreshing for me to see. He is, like myself when I first stumbled into this forum, likely unaware of the ins and outs of how things are done here and what is or isn't the best way to go about posting here.

I wasn't at the age of consent panel, but what I heard from people there is much the same as has been discussed here, including the allegations from the article. I understand that even after the doors were tiled, delegates continued to come in, vote, and be counted. That's a no-no. If it's any consolation at all, an acquaintance who was ushering that panel tells me that that was due to sheer inexperience and overwork (rather than the ushers being involved...)

To echo (or perhaps misinterpret) mayakovsky, I thought convention was great fun, mostly in spite of as opposed to because of the policy debates and resolution panels. I enjoyed renewing old friendships and seeing old comrades (mayakovsky included), hearing some great speakers, and seeing Quebec City (it was my longest time there since the Summit...)

A few thoughts, off the top of my head, about the article:

1- On the Hetu and Laliberte defections: I think these, along with the infamous Summerville incident, have gotten much too much play. Laliberte is now working for the FTQ, and from what I understand doesn't wanna go against their political line. I think Corvin is also slightly wrong about attributing Hetu's leaving to his contention that Layton is betraying the party's "activist base". I don't have Hetu's Le Devoir article in front of me, but if i recall correctly, I think Hetu makes the opposite contention (ie. that Layton is beholden to activists, and out of touch with Canadians). What's more, the two concrete examples I remember him giving were Layton's "expulsion" of Bev Desjarlais, and our recent anti-war stance - a far cry from leaving the party because it has betrayed its activists...

2- On the Sherbrooke Declaration. The declaration surprised me by being so soft, and essentially a re-hash of old policy. That being said, I thought it was fairly solid, and I'm glad the party as a whole was able to adopt a position in favour of Quebec's national rights. BUT, the near-unanimity makes me wonder how many delegates actually read the thing... That being said, I think Khadir is wrong in emphasizing this'll cost us in the prairies. I know some (many) Quebec Leftists who believe that rural Saskatchewan hates Quebec, but the reality is that most people here simply don't care about constitutional issues all that much. Sask elected 12 of 14 Conservatives, and if they can cozy up to Quebec, why can't we? (and I'm not one for defending the virtue of all that is rural Sask)

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/for_the_sake_of_argument.shtml?sh_itm=5b9746c1c050a...'s have one more convention-related article[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/for_the_sake_of_argument.shtml?sh_itm=5b9746c1c050a...'s have one more convention-related article[/url][/b]

---

Some thoughts:

quote:

---

Instead, we got a Harper-esque 5-point plan. Afghanistan, the green economy, looking after seniors, making life cheaper for working Canadians and all things children. This will be achieved, Jack tells us, “Carefully. Prudently. And one practical step at a time.” Never mind the meekness, how will he and his 10 per cent of MPs get it done?

---

I'll point out that in 1999, the Manitoba NDP did the exact same thing, and won the election. How that is "Harperesque," I don't know. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with taking the important issues and summarising them so people can digest them in bite sized pieces, and providing a basic framework from which we can be more specific. At the very least, it helps the NDP explain what it stands for.

quote:

---

What's the democratic reform that would automatically produce a dramatic jump in the NDP's national presence, simply by virtue of fairer math? What has been, on and off, one of the NDP's principal policy planks over the past several years? What has Jack called a top priority of NDP negotiations with other parties in a minority Parliament? And what did Jack not mention a single time in his speech, never mind making it one of the NDP's five priorities for the next election?

Proportional representation. It was a strange omission on the very weekend that a citizens' assembly in Ontario was being inaugurated, an assembly whose sole purpose is to figure out whether we need to fix the province's electoral system, and if so, how.

---

I agree we need PR, but how are we supposed to get it with the current make-up? Of the major parties, only the NDP favours it (for reasons that are quite self-explanatory, IMHO), so how far do you really expect it to go? Besides, I think this is more a back-burner issue for the voting public.

quote:

---

This is the same brain trust that's decided not to talk about economics, despite recent studies showing that salaries for Canadian workers have barely budged in 25 years. That's a long time and it's a big problem. It even sounds vaguely related to “Putting Working People First.”

---

I agree. Economic policy, although risky, is an area where we can differentiate ourselves from the other parties, and I think we may pay down the road for not dealing with this subject.

quote:

---

On a whole host of issues, the NDP is taking bizarre positions. The party will likely vote with the Conservatives on raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 (changing a 25-year-old law). They campaigned in favour of minimum sentences against the expert opinion of criminologists and the views of the party's own base. And despite the Conservative win in the last election, they still seem intellectually and emotionally fixated on fighting the Liberals.

Watching NDP MP Olivia Chow organize to keep a vote on the criminalization of youth sexuality from hitting the convention floor was shocking. Not the fact that she was playing the game, but that she was putting her energy — and political capital — into defeating a motion she probably agreed with. She's my leftist MP, in a downtown Toronto riding. If she won't stand up to Conservatives legislating the thin end of the wedge of their monstrous social agenda, who will?

---

It was wrong for the debate on that subject to be shut down the way it was. However on the substance of the issue, members within the party are divided on it (which was reflected during discussions both here and on other boards). I respect different opinions on this topic, but I think it's evident that on this topic there is no correct answer.

quote:

---

On his blog, York University political scientist James Laxer identified the NDP's “strategic dilemma.” How do you go after the Tories when this means voters, choosing the lesser evil, will flee to the Liberals? Hence their current strategy of going easy on Harper, weakly accusing him of being “wrong on the issues” and focusing their attack on who they believe to be their real enemy, the Liberals.

Since Laxer thinks — and he's surely correct — that Harper is the most reactionary Prime Minister in Canadian history, it follows that the NDP's current obligation is to show Canadians how reactionary and out of touch with their values Harper is, even if this wins them fewer seats than nibbling away at the Liberals. He argues that “the NDP must earn the trust of Canadians over time that they will never shy away from speaking out on behalf of working people and the nation. That is the road to electing the first people's government in Canadian history.”

---

So what do we do about it? Of the people who voted Conservative, how many would ever consider voting NDP anyways? The only place I see this being a possibility is where you have NDP-Conservative swings in Western Canada, however these swings boil down to personality and voter trust, not ideology. People vote Liberal because they believe it's the best way to have progressive policy, but I doubt few expect any progressive policies to come from the Conservatives.

quote:

---

Adam Radwanski articulated recently, in the National Post, what a lot of people on the left are thinking right now. He wrote, “I know first-hand that [Layton] has an active and vigorous mind for policy, that he usually does his homework before opening his mouth, and that he's capable of understanding the nuances of complicated and controversial policy issues. […] But unless voters begin to see a little more of the Layton I saw over dinner, and less of the snake-oil salesman who preens for the cameras, it's doubtful he'll be able to take them much further.”

---

Agreed. Jack needs to put aside the teleprompters and the scritps, and simply tell the truth. He knows the issues, and he does well when he has a chance to just talk to and connect with people.

quote:

---

Some thoughts:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, we got a Harper-esque 5-point plan. Afghanistan, the green economy, looking after seniors, making life cheaper for working Canadians and all things children. This will be achieved, Jack tells us, “Carefully. Prudently. And one practical step at a time.” Never mind the meekness, how will he and his 10 per cent of MPs get it done?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll point out that in 1999, the Manitoba NDP did the exact same thing, and won the election. How that is "Harperesque," I don't know. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with taking the important issues and summarising them so people can digest them in bite sized pieces, and providing a basic framework from which we can be more specific. At the very least, it helps the NDP explain what it stands for.

---

Heh, I remember handing out those cards. They listed the NDP's five 'commitments' (the main one was 'end hallway medicine') and urged voters to "Keep this card, we'll keep these commitments". I later found out that this 'commitment card' technique was copied directly from Tony Blair's successful 1997 campaign (horrors!). [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]