NDP Brings White Fest to Halifax

One person it would be good to hear from in some capacity (if not convention speaking then at one of the cultural events) is George Elliot Clarke, the Nova Scotia poet.  He used to work on the Hill ages ago for Howard McCurdy, and has gone on to incredible success.

ETA: I didn't mean to suggest that the last two points were in any way related ;-)

M. Spector wrote:

Hey, Corvin, I think we hit a nerve.

You flatter yourself Spector.

While agree that it might be quick to jump given a speaker list that is changing- still, its whiteness left us wide open and fair game for the opening post criticism Corvin made.

But as to the general criticisms of the NDP that both of you made- those are easily sloughed off. Corvin ran them together and I just wanted to differentiate between them.

Its interesting that the original posting criticizes the NDP BOTH for having a lineup of speakers that are all white and also for highlighting links to Barack Obama - the first black President of the US!

See, this why I hate anonymity on this forum. Everyone knows Stockholm is part of the NDP. But, since he refuses to be sign his posts, the discredit for their racism extends to all of party members.

I expect a run on "I am not Stockholm" t-shirts in Halifax (he'll certainly buy a couple).

martin dufresne wrote:

I expect a run on "I am not Stockholm" t-shirts in Halifax (he'll certainly buy a couple).

How about "Nobody knows I'm Stockholm"

Ha! That would be a dead giveaway...

Keep an eye out for someone wearing the Swedish coat of arms!

Actually, what Ken just wrote about the membership vs. convention and council delegates vs. the caucus makes a lot of intuitive sense to me, and is a useful distinction I hadn't thought to draw out in such clear terms.  Good job and thanks for that.

Do you suppose it's too late to order some "I suffer from Stockholm Syndrome" t-shirts for the convention?  I can't be there, unfortunately but would buy one for sure ;-)

Incindentally, making baseless personal slanders at me is againt the terms of conduct of babble and I have lodged a complaint.

Its definitely not the second. And in my opinion, that you read it that way says more about you.

Does weighing the politics and choosing to be as 'pragmatic' as the politicians make you "stupid". I may not agree with the choices, but in my view its not a good starting point to look at people that way.

There is a lot of disengagement, although I would not at all characterise it as "no involvement whatsoever". Thats characteristic of false dichotomies.

But the blunt reality is that there are a lot of members who while they see policy as important- to the degree they are going to put out actual energy its going to be around the gruntwork of trying to elect people. While they would agree the rest of the life of a party is important, they are less motivated to do something about it.

That state of affairs is ultimately the sole responsibility of the NDP, but it would be infantile to not take into account how much of that is a product of the culture, and a lot of the class system, we are all immersed in. Infantile, because you can't just wave a wand and dissapear it.

Incindentally, making baseless personal slanders at me is againt the terms of conduct of babble...

I labeled posts, not a person. And given that person's anonymity, how could that be "personal slander"?

Did someone say Stockholm was a party staffer?

spatrioter wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Actually, what Ken just wrote about the membership vs. convention and council delegates vs. the caucus makes a lot of intuitive sense to me, and is a useful distinction I hadn't thought to draw out in such clear terms.  Good job and thanks for that.

It only makes sense if you believe that either (a) the party membership is so disengaged that they have no involvement whatsoever in the election of their convention representatives; or (b) the party membership is too stupid to know the politics of the people they are electing as their representatives.

Neither of which paints the party in a better light.

Good grief, no it doesn't.  It could just as easily mean they're busy with other aspects of their life, like what they see from the caucus, and are content to leave well enough alone.  People go through different phases of involvement at different phases of their life, depending on how much free time they have and what the other demands on their attention are.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nsvotes2009/story/2009/06/09/ns-votes-women-ele... Scotia sends record 12 women to Province House in election[/url]

After 160 years of old line party rule, it was an exercise in democracy, really.

And much work needs to be done in Ottawa with cleaning up that [url=http://www.senatehalloffame.ca]old white boyz' over 60's club[/url] known as the senate.

I'm glad someone agrees with me on that! I mean, the NDP posts an interim list of speakers that doesn't include any visible minorities and the next thing we know we get a thread with a title that makes it sound like the convention in Halifax is going to consist of people in hoods burning crosses. the OP should really change it.

The thread title is fair comment.

It's certainly milder than a lot of thread titles about other political parties. Nobody complained (and rightly so) when a thread was called Saskatchewan trying to rival Alberta for bigoted intolerance masking as religious rights?

The crap about hoods and burning crosses is all in your alleged mind.

The title also [url=http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/corvin-russell/2009/07/ndp-brings-white-... to have been approved[/url] by rabble.ca's editors.

That's true and there are some great women and men in the party, unfortunately they don't seem to be running the party.

One can "politely ask" or angrily confront. The latter is not always inappropriate and helps convince people they've made a grievous mistake.

Point taken. I just think we can push and prod without thread titles that are misleading.

KenS wrote:

There are at lot more competing demands on an organization- be that a union or a political party- than there are on a discussion space.

Yeah, I'd love to hear your comments about the 2006 convention and the crime and age-of-consent issue. And about squelching discussion of ending the drug war this time round. The "competing demands on an organization" are the demands of progress vs. the demands of power. The NDP will need to make a radical rupture with the pandering of the present if it wants to demarcate itself and inspire the youth of today the way its predecessors did.

Boom Boom wrote:

Instead of attacking the closest thing we have to a progressive party in Canada, why not instead politely ask the organising committee to reflect more diversity in the line-up of speakers, or inquire if their line-up will be more diverse as planning goes on?

When pushing and prodding towards the obvious needs to occur on a continuous basis, when delegates and members are schemed against to avoid having their progressive issues represented on the floor, when individuals bearing sensible  proposals are essentially hung up on, and when a party that claims to espouse non-discriminatory, representational ideals and practices can organize a list of speakers while overlooking the evident contradictions, wouldn't you agree that the time for politeness has past?  The thread title is a legitimate response.

ennir wrote:

I think the speaker who is "part of Obama's inner circle" is a pathetic marketing strategy and demonstrates a party leadership that is less in touch with the kind of Canada I want than I have ever seen before.  What the fuck is wrong with them?

I agree.  Crazy.  

One of the guys who was in Obama's inner circle (of about 50 people?) is coming to convention to speak.  therefore he's on board.  Therefore, by extension, Barack Obama is on board.  Which means that, by extension, there is virtually no difference between Barack Obama and Jack Layton.  In fact, Jack Layton is like Barack Obama.  Actually, he is Canada's Barack Obama, bald head and moustache notwithstanding.  

I once danced with a girl who danced with a boy who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales...

Seriously, the whiff of desperation is in the air... I take it that there may be a few seats without bums at convention...

Note to Federal  NDP... Jack Layton is not, he's really not, he's definitely really not Barack Obama.  Dennis Kuchinich maybe...

BTW, do you have a suggestion of some non-white speakers that could come?  Other than Gary Coleman...

Stockholm, besides all the words you're inferring, is there anything Corvin said that wasn't true?  He didn't call the NDP neo-nazi's.

I think some reactions are more telling.  It's long been a frustration that the NDP can't see this after years of quiet criticism.

Out of seven announced Canadian speakers, one is a woman.

[b]That's better than zero!!!![/b]

"Stockholm, besides all the words you're inferring, is there anything Corvin said that wasn't true?"

There is lots that isn't true. First of all he says that 6 out of 7 speakers are male - i count 6 out of 8. He says that there are 18 headshots of men, where??? Also, given that the convention is a month a way and the list of speakers is still changing regularly and is incomplete, it seems like cheap grandstanding that makes me think that he has decided to follow the B'nai B'rish strategy of distorting and attacking EVERYTHING and turning everythng into a straw dog.

Did Corvin actually contact anyone at the NDP to ask if the speakers list was complete? Did anyone in the party respond to the lack of diversity? I assume the answer is no otherwise we would read about it in the OP.