NDP Convention (Thread 3)

Quote:

Second, the NDP are now plotting a slow steady path that some in the party believe may lead them, eventually, to political party.

What does that mean?

"DP is also open to bad retro (post ww II)  jokes about the party's fate as "displaced persons".  Go ahead, be morons."

Gee if it was that simple, why don't we all start referring to the Liberals as the "LP" and make a lot of jokes about how they are as out of date a vinyl and how long-winded they are because they are long playing...

Seriously, I'm a bit of an agnostic on the issue of dropping the "N" in "NDP", but I think that the idea that the party would then be known as the "DP" is absurd - nobody calls something that is one word long by its acronym - when was the last time you hearc the Democrats in in the US called the "DP"??

This is true to a point, but there are also a lot of politicians in Canada who crashed and burned because they were too "pretty" to the point of being "plastic". Look at how we vomitted up John Turner and Stockwell Day (to name a few). In fact in Canada some of our most successful politicians were downright UGLY - like Diefenbaker or Chretien or Ralph Klein!

Wow, a man disliking commentary about a male politicians appearance, yet women politicians appearances are fair game, all the time. Not once in a blue moon.

ETA: no actually I do not, in fact I hope the grass roots there makes their displeasure felt and that would be a success.

One can watch it live at:

http://www.ndp.ca/

"The vast majority of the discussion will be about the economy, the economic crisis we're facing and how we need a government that's on the side of Canadians as they grapple with the tough times that we're in," he said

Hmm...too bad that the legalization of marijuana won't be part of the discussion about the economy. It seems the party wants to avoid that issue.

Dewar is no friend of anything progressive. He authored the statement praising Harper for announcing that Canada would be the first country to boycott Durban II. The statement went up on ndp.ca but was mercifully removed within two days after the outcry it generated. [url=http://dialoguewithdiversity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic... is an example[/color][/url] of the attack on Dewar at the time, but there were dozens if not hundreds like it. Ultimately, after months of silence, Dewar was ordered to write to then-foreign minister Emerson (while Wayne Marston, the boycott's co-author, was ordered to write to Harper) asking him to "reassess" the very boycott that Dewar had screamed for in the first place. The man should not be allowed to represent this party in public.

ETA: You can still read most of the original January 2008 pro-boycott statement [url=http://notimeformetaphors.blogspot.com/2008/06/ndp-reconsiders-durbanfin..., along with the about-face letters of May 29, 2008.

One reason I left the party, decades ago, was the unabashed declaration by party functionaries (who happened to be in government at the time when they could actually do something) that they were not bound by convention policy. A reminder of that unfortunate truth was the September 2006 convention decision to demand immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. The party's defence critic abandoned that demand before the ink was dry and was never called to account - because, of course, it was only a matter of time before the same retreat was to be disclosed in the leader's own statements.

That's why it's wrong to pay undue attention to the resolutions, except as a barometer of the consciousness and aspirations of the healthy forces within the party - the ones on the ground, engaged more or less in real-life struggles. Besides that, they provide only a veneer of transparency and internal party democracy: "Discuss, debate, and decide whatever you like - subject to our veto."

I do, however, find it particular troubling that there is no hint of reaffirmation of the Sherbrooke Declaration in the resolutions. It was a historic moment in September 2006 when the convention finally, after decades of waffling, gave formal recognition to Québec's right to self-determination. This must have come as an embarrassment to the party chiefs, who ensured that not even a hyperlink to that document could be found on the main party website. What surprises me is that even the Québec section has proposed no resolution on that issue. If they are dazzled by the encouraging election of Mulcair and the poll results into thinking that they can retrench to the old ways, they will wake up to find themselves annihilated in Québec once again - which would be tragic, in the classic sense (being lured by past victory into future defeat).

Many important resolutions are being dealt with in Halifax and all eveyone is focusing on is the prospective name change.  This is especially true of the mainstream press in this country.  How we can have a politically knowledgeable electorate in this country with such a press is a good question.  Our publicaly funded CBC is not carrying the convention.  What is going on here?

To be fair unionist, the Sherbrooke Declaration stands, one does not need such a resolution at every convention, and one cannot pretend that just because it isn't reviisited at every convention that it does not exist.

Quote:

Monday October 6 2008 - We have put up a link to the Seniors' Charter as proposed by the NDP that ensures respect, dignity and security for our seniors. This is a very important matter to the New Democractic Party. We have also put up a summary of the Sherbrooke Declaration, describing the relationship the NDP wishes to have with Québec.

http://www.francoiseboivin.com/en/home.html

remind wrote:

To be fair unionist, the Sherbrooke Declaration stands, one does not need such a resolution at every convention, and one cannot pretend that just because it isn't reviisited at every convention that it does not exist.

 

I agree with you, remind, there should be no need to reaffirm it each time, but I have concerns. Shortly after the convention, the NDP got sucked into supporting Harper's "Québécois are a nation" resolution, without taking the time to understand that in his formulation, it meant "old stock" Quebeckers and not everyone. The BQ also opportunistically supported it, because they figured that they could still use it to advantage. But as formulated, it goes [b]against[/b] self-determination in the civic and non-ethnic sense, besides tying this so-called "nationhood" to "within Canada".

Secondly, I repeat - where is the [b]full text[/b] of this important Declaration? You can find it if you search for a while, but you sure won't find it on the party website, not even through a link. Boivin's page gives only a summary.

Finally, I repeat - the NDP mustn't get complacent about Québec, and I see nothing in the resolutions that reflects any sense of urgency about making gains there.

The NDP's official site gets completely renewed after each election, which I think is a bad idea. They need to have ALL historical documents carried forward on it too, though the permanent POLICY document is.

However quibbling now, that only the Sherbrooke Declaration  overview is presented, when you claimed before it was now where, is a bit much to accept. Looking only to bash indicates much.

Only 15 Liberals voted against  Harper's "Québécois are a nation" resolution,  and none of them were QC MP's, and the resolution is not even binding legally. So disparaging the NDP and Bloc only, is a bit outrageous.

Now, in respect to the NDP's  position on QC:

Quote:

At the 2006 Convention in Quebec City, delegates resolved to create a policy book bringing existing policy into a comprehensive document that would be accessible to members and non-members who were interested in the Party’s policy goals.

The resulting policy book was developed by the Party’s Policy Review Committee and forms the basis of debates at all future Conventions. It has been distributed to riding associations, affiliates, and youth chapters so that amendments to the document can be considered by delegates at the 2009 Halifax Convention.

The policy book contains the principles and policy as formulated and voted on by Party members. Thus, amendments should focus on the text that follows “New Democrats believe” and not on the preamble at the beginning of each section. The preamble is simply an introductory narrative to those policies.

Quote:

For New Democrats, cooperative federalism is also asymmetrical federalism; recognizing and encouraging
Quebec’s unique national character in North America, with French as the language of daily life and work.
Our federalism supports Quebec’s right to its own progressive economic and social practices, and to the
development of its own sense of nationhood.

5.4 Official Languages and Bilingualism New Democrats believe in:

a. Upholding the Official Languages Act and the language rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
b. Strengthening the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages
c. Enhancing minority language services in education, community health, and child care, in consultation with representative organizations
d. Ensuring better representation of linguistic communities in public broadcasting (CBC-Radio-Canada); and
e. Strengthening exchange and immersion programs for students, civil society and businesses

5.5 Quebec and Asymmetrical Federalism New Democrats believe in:
a. Recognizing the national character of Quebec, based in particular on a society with French as the language of work and the common language of the public domain; a unique culture expressed through a sense of identity and belonging to Quebec; a specific history; and political, economic,
cultural and social institutions of its own
b. Affirming asymmetrical federalism, recognizing Quebec’s need for appropriate tools to meet its unique challenges
c. Recognizing that Quebec can withdraw, with compensation, from federal programs that fall within its jurisdiction
d. Supporting Quebec’s role in promoting the French culture in North America, while respecting the right of linguistic minorities within and outside Quebec; and
e. Creating the conditions enabling Quebec to sign the Canadian Constitution

http://www.ndp.ca/sites/default/files/hfx09/Policy.pdf

What would you like to have seen added or changed to this?

Also, the QC caucus is meeting today, so I am not sure what you could know about what they are putting forth in addition to what is permanently there, along with the Sherbrooke Declaration.

remind wrote:

Huh? The whole damn policy states the right to self determination. What do you think recognizing the national character means other than that?

 

Look, I have no intention of debating this with you. The right to self-determination means the right to [b]SEPARATE[/b] without interference by others. That's what convention adopted. That's what Françoise Boivin still has on her "summary" that you linked to. I can't friggin' believe that the entire 137 page policy book you just referred me to doesn't include the right of Québec to separate. If this is for real - can someone please clarify this for me? - then the NDP can go royally fuck itself, in Québec and everywhere else. That was reason number 2 I left the NDP in the 1970s - because they rejected the Waffle's drive for recognition of Québec's right to self-determination.

This is not about semantics, remind. This is about whether they recognize Québec's right, or not. It would be as if a party had "a women's right to abortion on demand" in its policy book, then deleted that and replaced it by: "respect for a woman's sovereignty over her body".

Remind, if that's what the NDP's latest verbiage means, then it's finished in Québec (as it was since the 1930s) and it can go fuck itself. If you don't understand that Québec's right to separate is a fundamental part of any democratic platform, then I feel very sorry for you. As far as "comparing with women's rights", I was simply trying to provide an analogy. You want to debate whether women's rights are more or less important than nation's rights? I know some people who invaded Afghanistan because they said that women's rights trumped national sovereignty.

Anyway, this is a serious question. If the NDP has dropped explicit recognition of the right to self-determination, I have a lot of people to talk to in my riding, my union, the peace movement, and elsewhere about the next election. If it's just a mistake, they had better correct. Otherwise, they are now more backward than the Supreme Court and the Clarity Act. Time to wind up this bullshit party of hypocritical power-seekers (and might as well add - perennial losers) and build something healthy.

Well so much for the media wags who acted like a name change was some massive NDP priority eminating from the top. Anyone who thinks that such a resolution couldn't have been moved up the priority list if it was a priority hasn't been to a convention.
I also like the comments from the grassroots member who actually wrote the resolution.
As I have been saying all along much ado about nothing.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090816/NDP_convention_090816/20090816?hub=TopStories

Time runs out on NDP name-change vote

The Federal New Democratic Party will keep its name, for now, as time ran out at the annual convention in Halifax before officials could move a resolution to consider dropping the word "New" from the party's name.

Delegates were originally expected to vote on the resolution Sunday, but party officials had warned on Saturday they might not have enough time.

The resolution, which, if passed, would have led to consultations on changing the party's name, was to have been introduced within a one-hour period. However, that ended before the resolution could be brought forward.

The proposed change had some critics suggesting that the NDP hoped to align itself more closely with Democrats in the United States.

Convention delegate Mariano Klimowicz, a co-author of the name-change resolution, denied the claim, and said dropping "New" from the party's name would help Canadians better understand the party's platform.

"We're very, very distinct from the Democratic party in the United States," said Klimowicz, 51. "We're more socialist-minded, more program-minded."

Yep, BA, that's what Ed Broadbent told Mike Valpy in an interview published Saturday in the Globe, and told delegates in a speech.  In the interview he said "One of the things that's irked me about this silly talk about changing the name of the party is we're not a democratic party, we're a social democratic party, the core value of which is equality."

As Valpy writes it, Broadbent "reached back into historyand talked about the reasons why Canadians once embraced the mythology of themselves as a sharing, caring society, a society that extolled equality and the dignity of its members, and how those labels became the glue of social cohesion.

"He baldly used the T-word: taxation. That sharing, caring society of government pensions, universal health care, comprehensive employment insurance, the expectation that every boy and girl with ability could go to university all was paid for 'by adequae levels of progressive taxation'."

The party must return to the theme of equality, he said, and tax the rich - he included himself in that category. "We ought to be paying more. That's where the ethics and practicality come together", A push for equality"not only helps middle-income people and the poor, it helps everyone: in health outcomes, levels of participation, reductions in crime, you name it. Maybe we can make that persuasive argument."

remind wrote:

...In the domain of political sciences, the political nation is the holder of the sovereignty which shapes the fundamental norms governing the functioning of the state.

The operative word in the quote was "sense". It evokes feelings, perceptions—"we'll let you feel however you like". It seems precisely fashioned to elude any sort of legal entitlement to actually do something about this popular perception/will... especially since there already exists a term in international law (self-determination) that has this clear, established meaning: "the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state".

Wishy-washiness instead of clear language. If you mean to include self-determination, just say it.

If the NDP is turning its back on the Sherbrooke declaration, it can kiss my vote goodbye. (I'm among the voters who elected Mulcair, BTW.)

Sense =

• Main Entry: 1sense
• Pronunciation: \ˈsen(t)s\
• Function: noun
• Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French sen, sens sensation, feeling, mechanism of perception, meaning, from Latin sensus, from sentire to perceive, feel; perhaps akin to Old High German sinnan to go, strive, Old English sith journey — more at send
• Date: 14th century

1 : a meaning conveyed or intended : import, signification; especially : one of a set of meanings a word or phrase may bear especially as segregated in a dictionary entry

5 : consensus <the sense of the meeting>

Nothing wishy washy about sense in the political legal meaning at all. Especially when used in conjunction with nationhood, it means consensus.

It is up to those in QC to decide on their own nationhood, no one else.

Absolutely no different than the definition of self-determination, both are "consensus".

• Main Entry: self–de·ter·mi·na·tion
• Pronunciation: \-di-ˌtər-mə-ˈnā-shən\
• Function: noun
• Date: circa 1670

1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political state

There are certainly enough reasons to bash the leadfership at this time, however, this is not one occasion

As ignoring that the Sherbrooke Declaration is in place, that the policy absolutely recognizes that those in Quebec, by consensus, get to decide their nationhood and that Mulcair is Deputy Leader and a pit bull for QC, is to  make a mountain out of a grain of salt.

Bärlüer wrote:

If the NDP is turning its back on the Sherbrooke declaration, it can kiss my vote goodbye. (I'm among the voters who elected Mulcair, BTW.)

That makes two of us, neighbour.

Since hailing the adoption of the Sherbrooke Declaration by the 2006 convention, I have expressed in these pages my concern at the party's failure/refusal to post or even provide a link to the Declaration.

Now, remind was kind enough above to provide me with a link to some new purported [url=http://www.ndp.ca/sites/default/files/hfx09/Policy.pdf][color=red]NDP policy book[/color][/url] which I had never seen or heard of. Here is what it says about Québec:

Quote:

5.5 Quebec and Asymmetrical Federalism

New Democrats believe in:

a. Recognizing the national character of Quebec, based in particular on a society with French as the language of work and the common language of the public domain; a unique culture expressed through a sense of identity and belonging to Quebec; a specific history; and political, economic, cultural and social institutions of its own

b. Affirming asymmetrical federalism, recognizing Quebec’s need for appropriate tools to meet its unique challenges

c. Recognizing that Quebec can withdraw, with compensation, from federal programs that fall within its jurisdiction

d. Supporting Quebec’s role in promoting the French culture in North America, while respecting the right of linguistic minorities within and outside Quebec; and

e. Creating the conditions enabling Quebec to sign the Canadian Constitution.

Plus this:

Quote:

For New Democrats, cooperative federalism is also asymmetrical federalism; recognizing and encouraging Quebec’s unique national character in North America, with French as the language of daily life and work. Our federalism supports Quebec’s right to its own progressive economic and social practices, and to the development of its own sense of nationhood.

That's all.

I have no clue what the official status of this pamphlet is, but someone has taken obvious pains to eliminate Québec's right to self-determination from the platform. As I said before, if this is the case, the NDP reverts to its historic position of chronic losers who just don't get it. I hope it's not true, but I intend to find out, and I would appreciate others doing likewise.

Hasn't the NDP pretty much always been a federalist party?

genstrike wrote:

Hasn't the NDP pretty much always been a federalist party?

Yes, but favouring federalism is not inconsistent with recognizing the democratic right of the nation of Québec to exercise its sovereignty and establish its own state, if it so chooses, without external threat or interference. For decades, the CCF-NDP refused to recognize that fundamental democratic right - until September 2006, when the NDP convention overwhelmingly ratified the Sherbrooke Declaration, which explicitly affirms that right. That doesn't mean the Sherbrooke Declaration is "anti-federalist" either - it is not.

Not recognizing Québec's right to separate means being prepared to use force to prevent its exercise of the sovereign will of Quebeckers. This is not an insignificant matter.

Quebeckers have shown they will support and elect parties that promote a federal state - but not without the right to leave.

With such logic, you are interfering with the creation of an invented scenario requiring much imagination, Stockholm.  Let artists have their creative moment.

Unionist wrote:

I do, however, find it particular troubling that there is no hint of reaffirmation of the Sherbrooke Declaration in the resolutions. It was a historic moment in September 2006 when the convention finally, after decades of waffling, gave formal recognition to Québec's right to self-determination. This must have come as an embarrassment to the party chiefs, who ensured that not even a hyperlink to that document could be found on the main party website. What surprises me is that even the Québec section has proposed no resolution on that issue. If they are dazzled by the encouraging election of Mulcair and the poll results into thinking that they can retrench to the old ways, they will wake up to find themselves annihilated in Québec once again - which would be tragic, in the classic sense (being lured by past victory into future defeat).

What's so troubling about that? The NDP adopted Sherbrooke and is now party policy. What would be accomplished by re-affirming it?

Frankly, I think even in Quebec the issue is becoming less important among the general public. In the past 6 years, every time the issue of Quebec sovereignty came up in a referendum and the PQ chose to bang that drum they were beaten back hard. It was only when Pauline Marois downplayed the issue that the PQ was allowed to come back. And is this issue really of great importance to people outside of political circles in Quebec or elsewhere? How many people actually know that there is a déclaration de Sherbrooke in Quebec or outside? Us policical people in our ivory towers might be impressed with this kind of talk and using rhetoric like "self-determination," however I personally believe that there are more pressing issues, like the environment, economy, economic inequality, infrastructure etc that require much more immediate attention.