ONDY slugfest

A Liberal "friend" of mine flipped me this from the latest issue of the Ontario Young Liberals email

Meet the Brand-New Ontario New Democratic Youth.  Many LOLZ Sure to Follow...

 The Ontario New Democratic Youth Turns Left.  Really, Really, Really, Far Left.  Actually.

And you thought OYL AGMs could get kind of crazy.

A radical leftist group has just literally taken over the Ontario New Democratic Youth (basically the NDP's OYL). 

"Hold on a second, Gabe," you might say. "Aren't you being a bit over-the-top?"

No!  I just had the pleasure of reading an article in a publication called "Fightback: The Canadian Marxist Voice of Labour and Youth" in which the author boasts, in detail, of how a group of self-proclaimed "radical Marxist" Young New Democrats ("Democrats" is being generous here...) stacked the ONDY Convention in Hamilton last weekend. 

Story is here: http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/613/1/

Their slate won every single executive position for which they nominated a candidate, a controlling majority of the Exec.  And they proceeded to pass a series of hilarious policy resolutions. 

It would appear that this was possible for three reasons:

1 - Their convention only had 75 delegates, so bring 40 of your closest friends and you too can be the Co-Chair.
2 - They do not enforce a membership cut-off, so anyone can show up to the election, sign a form, and vote.  Seriously. 
3 - The political gods thought I deserved some major lolz.

Model Parliament is going to be CRAZY!!!!

If you happen to have NDP friends who have told you any hilarious stories about the weekend convention, I would be thrilled to hear from you at [email protected].

Furthermore, if you find this as entertaining as I do, please join the Opposition Watch Comms Comm. Again, this can be accomplished by emailing me at [email protected]. 

I love it when people go nuts in an election year.  Oh well.

Fascinating. 

Quote:

At one point, they introduced an amendment to the resolution against police brutality so that only “non-violent” opponents of brutality would be supported. They claimed that the resolution would advocate violence and attempted to paint the left as extremists. The debate was incredibly principled on the side of the movers of the resolution, arguing that the label “violence” is a slippery slope. Who decides what is, and is not, “violent”? 

I universally condemn police brutality. But who decides where to draw the line on tactics? Rock throwers who attack small businesses and medical clinics as well as symbols of capitalism? Bank bombers? Certainly not the sellouts who organize around elections or plan useless marches that go in circles chanting chants that no one listens to. And certainly not the "right wing" ONDP. After all, the other side are war mongers with nukes, fighter jets and chemical weapons so no actions under the rubric of "diversity of tactics" can ever be debated by the movement. The tactics are sacrosanct. Critics are silenced. Who are the real victims here? 

Polunatic2 wrote:

Fascinating. 

Quote:

At one point, they introduced an amendment to the resolution against police brutality so that only “non-violent” opponents of brutality would be supported. They claimed that the resolution would advocate violence and attempted to paint the left as extremists. The debate was incredibly principled on the side of the movers of the resolution, arguing that the label “violence” is a slippery slope. Who decides what is, and is not, “violent”? 

I universally condemn police brutality. But who decides where to draw the line on tactics? Rock throwers who attack small businesses and medical clinics as well as symbols of capitalism? Bank bombers? Certainly not the sellouts who organize around elections or plan useless marches that go in circles chanting chants that no one listens to. And certainly not the "right wing" ONDP. After all, the other side are war mongers with nukes, fighter jets and chemical weapons so no actions under the rubric of "diversity of tactics" can ever be debated by the movement. The tactics are sacrosanct. Critics are silenced. Who are the real victims here? 

Clifford Olsen is no more deserving of police brutality than any rock throwing anarchists or peaceful protesters. The principled position is to support victims of police brutality, regardless of their own activities.

Sure, if you want to have a debate about what kinds of activities are condoned by an organization that is all well and fine, but trying to shoe-horn that in, via amendment, into a discussion about victims of police brutality is to sully a discussion of basic rights by politicizing it.

There has been a lot of discussion about changing the name. Could just get rid of the "Democratic" part. Then it would just be the "New Party". I like that. It has that amorphous meaningless tenor of fascist organizations. Indeed, it does.

Cueball wrote:

Clifford Olsen is no more deserving of police brutality than any rock throwing anarchists or peaceful protesters. The principled position is to support victims of police brutality, regardless of their own activities.

Sure, if you want to have a debate about what kinds of activities are condoned by an organization that is all well and fine, but trying to shoe-horn that in, via amendment, into a discussion about victims of police brutality is to sully a discussion of basic rights by politicizing it.

Possibly thread drift, but . . .

I absolutely agree that police brutality should be condemned regardless of the victim or what the victim was doing.

That said, it seems to me that there is a legitimate legal exemption for "reasonable force."  If the actions of a person constitute an immediate threat to others, the use of commensurate and proportional force sufficient to mitigate or eliminate the threat is justified.  For example, the use of a firearm to incapacitate someone shooting at a crowd may be appropriate.  The use of a firearm to incapacitete someone waving a sword at a crowd is probably not.  The use of physical force (ie, taclke and cuff) to restrain the sword wielder may be appropriate.  Tackling and cuffing a peaceful protester who is just standing there is probably not.

In other words, the application of a given amount of force may constitute police brutality in one case but not in another.

Had the police at the 20 been doing their job on Saturday (instead of having been instructed to stand by and give "vandals" a free pass), then tackling, cuffing and detaining rockthrowing individuals would have been a reasonable application of force.  Tackling, cuffing and detaining peaceful protestors - the same actions in a different context - was a clear and unequivocal abuse of police power.

All of which, of course, has almost nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Police brutality is not and never has included justifiable force. It only covers cases where unjustifiable force is used.

I'd like you to give me examples where persons who have suffered rough treatment at the hands of the police are not accused of provoking the action by their own actions by the police? I have never heard of a case where the police have volunteered that they brutalized someone without having just cause.

The determination of cases of police brutality are determined in a court. I don't see how the NDP is going to pre-determine, who it does and does not support except on the basis of the police view of the situation, since they are the only other witnesses. In that case the resolution would amount to the NDP supports no one who is accusing the police of brutality, since the police in ALL cases claim that the use of force was justifiable and commensurate with the level of threat.

As one person is said to observe at the meeting: "He said that people are innocent until proven guilty and that workers' organizations shouldn't be passing judgment but unquestionably defending people's civil rights."

Precisely right. Is the NDP going to set up tribunals of individuals to determine who were engaged in violent acts and so therefore were not a victims of police brutality, and then issue certificates of support on a case by case basis?

It is completely clear and evident that there were massive violations of human rights at the G20, including fairly wide spread police brutality. Condemning that police brutality is simple enough.

In cases where justifiable force was used, there simply was no police brutality, of course.

All the people you list managed to win elections. No one has ever won election ANYWHERE on the planet earth running on the kind of Trostkyist platform you read about in "fightback". If that kind of "bread riots in St. Petersburg-style" rhetorical actually appealed to anyone - you would think that there might be a single solitary election ANYWHERE on this planet where a party of the extreme left was getting more than single digit support. But alas, there is none. In election after election after election, parties to the left of mainstrean social democratic parties keep getting utterly humiliated with low single digit support.

Actually, the Communist Party of Russia candidate usually comes in second in Russian presidentially elections, often exceeding by far the support the NDP gets in Canada.

The person you speak of who won 12% of the vote in the mayoral race was not a serious candidate and was not in it to win - as a result people in the NDP quite rightly concluded that it was better to concentrate limited resources on winning council races rather than throwing good money after bad on a hopeless quixotic mayoral campaign that was more like a leisurely farewell tour/retirement party.

The reason the Communist Party is now only getting 12% in Russia, is because Russians can vote Putin and go back to Brezhnev and the KGB, litterally speaking, since Putin is a former KGB Colonel.

Stockholm wrote:

The person you speak of who won 12% of the vote in the mayoral race was not a serious candidate and was not in it to win - as a result people in the NDP quite rightly concluded that it was better to concentrate limited resources on winning council races rather than throwing good money after bad on a hopeless quixotic mayoral campaign that was more like a leisurely farewell tour/retirement party.

You mean the NDP is not serious and can not win. Your argument sounds like the excuse of a jilted loser in love: "I wasn't really interested anyway... "sniff". That is what I take from that.

This expresses precisely the problem of weakness in the ONDP. It is so weak that its youth wing can be easily taken over by marginalized Trotskyiests, and can not field what you think is a  "serious" candidate in Toronto's Mayoralty race, in a constituency that can be counted among the most left leaning in the country.

Incredibly the NDP candidate that did run, only won in two polls in the entire city and won no wards.

They don't even field a candidate in Ward 20 anymore. The candidate that does run in that half of Olivia Chow's riding, doesn't seem to think being identified with the NDP is worthwhile.

I see no evidence that Joe Pantalone was not in it to win.  I see a lot of evidence that a number of huge and unlikely things would have to break his way for him to win.

I am not real happy with some NDP positions, but I understand and have considerable respect for the idea that if you don't win elections you have no power to do anything.  On the prairies and in BC you could move the party away from elections uber alles and still win, not so in Ontario.

The Toronto Mayoralty race is nowhere near being a left wing happy hunting ground.  Remember it is mostly the suburbs.  Your assertion to the contrary calls into question your grasp on political reality. The only reason Miller won was the right wingers self destructed.

Colin Vaughan ran against the idea of the downtown NDP machine.  No way is he joining the party.  There have always been reasonable options to NDP in city politics.  Ward 6 Communtiy Organization, anyone?  I don't think Adam is as principled a player but the cost of ousting him is vastly higher than the gains.

The NDP is very weak in Ontario as illustrated by the capture of ONDY.  This is not a good thing.  I do think part of the problem is the capture of the party by the apparatchiks.  However, having the party counter captured by a crowd that sounds like a bunch of Barry Wiesleder clones is not going to help.

A big chunk of the NDP members in TS don't want to be part of that kind of political machine.  The history of this riding has it frequently (but not always) at odds with the NDP leadership.  Part of the consequence of that is the general decision that Adam Vaughan is an acceptable representative on city council.

That actually speaks to a commitment to democracy locally that transcends allegiance to the NDP.

In what respect is it game over?  Is the game the idea that the NDP has to control all levels of elected government in this part of the world?  Why is that a good game?

You seem to simply be arguing my point, and pretending it is a counter-argument.

I think he's trying to say fire good, NDP bad. Or something like that. His word speaky is the same since we found him dancing with wolves.

Since I dont know the particulars I'll let Jim answer that. But one thing I do know- you arent listening or addressing what Jim said so far.

There isnt a "machine" such as you are talking about Cueball. Weak, powerful or whatever, it does not make decisions like you posit. When it comes down to supporting candidates in municipal elections, riding association activists are able to do as they want and very independent minded. That independence has to be taken into account even for provincial and federal elections, let alone municipal.

If the local Dippers have no interest in running someone against Vaughan- and its the same if just a minority of them want to- thats it.

jrootham wrote:

That actually speaks to a commitment to democracy locally that transcends allegiance to the NDP.

Unless you're in Fightback

Municipally Trinity-Spadina and it's historical equivalents (Ward 6) has been a leftist stronghold since the block ward system was killed off in the ealry 70's.  Dan Heap, Dan Leckie, Alan Sparrow.  Many local politicals position themselves to the left of the NDP without going all Trotskyist.  The only time the left lost a civic election here was when the NDP was being homophobic over George Hislop.  That let Gordon Chong win a seat.  He was defeated, as an INCUMBENT, the next election.  That also killed off the W6CO.  

Trinity Spadina has a large and somewhat informal left base that mostly supports the NDP but is now supporting Adam at council.  It has nothing to do with any left liberal support, municipally that is irrelevant.  Here the left gets what it wants, and right now it wants Adam.

There is no deal.  Given the amorphous nature of the left here any deal would have to be public.

jrootham wrote:

...That let Gordon Chong win a seat.  He was defeated, as an INCUMBENT, the next election....FYI - that was Jack Layton who beat Chong and started his political career.

Out here we run civic parties that are independent of the NDP but left wing and most NDP activists are supporters and volunteers.  In Vancouver a left party COPE and a liberal party Vision beat the snot out of the right wing NPA. COPE and Vision for all their bitter differences got behind a single mayoral candidate. In Burnaby the BCA is a left liberal party with an NDP membership being a precondition to joining but there are no other official ties to the party.  The left has won council and the Mayor's chair for decades.  The BCA deliberately plays down the NDP connection but plays up its left roots in our civic history.  In the FPTP system they were rewarded with all the seats in the last election and the Mayor cruised to an easy win

So is the ONYD kerfuffle a symptom of underlying problems with left and left liberal coalition?  Seems to me that civic green sustainable issues are something that should build coalitions.  Red baiting to protect the holy grail of a narrow parliamentary model of left politics doesn't seem to be making much headway. Maybe its time for the left liberals to stop trying to define a party whose name claims it is democratic. Throwing people out while vilifying them is the stupidest way to get young people engaged in politics. Without youth energy like the Calgary Mayor's race the ONDP is doomed to third party obscurity in a two horse race.

Cueball wrote:

You argued variously that NDP'rs in the ward think Adam is good enough. Here you are playing the game I said is being played: supporting a candidate by default, by not running against him.

The game you speak of, and the 'rules' you make up for them are yours.

Jim made teh simple point that the lefty Dippers in the ward decided Adam was good enough. Because its muncipla politics, thats the end of it.

There is no point anyone from outside the ward [and TS riding association] even considering options that dont exist. When there is a nomination the party has the option if it wants of running an uphill battle against the apparent favourite of the riding activists. [And then make peace with them if the candidate they wants wins.] But without the nomination process there is only the amorphous concensus of the local NDP activists.

You are on the one crticising the NDP for not being a vey adaept organization. But at the same time because this 'machine' could have had an alternative candidate if it wanted, the fact it didnt means that Adam was in practice what it wanted.

Doesnt make sense.

Yes, everyone has said that. But reading wider meaning than that- what the NDP wants- is not 'obvious.'

That is a bunch of crap. Wards 20 NDP has had nomination processess in the past. Indeed, in the election that Vaughan won, there was a big internal contest in the riding association between Olivia Chow's chosen successor, Helen Kennedy and Tam Gossen. The reason that there is no nomination process now is because the situation in the riding association completely toxic, as a result of that.

Obviously the NDP riding assocaition is comfortable with Adam.

They had absolutely no compunction running against Karen Sun in Ward 19 (an independent and popular riding activist), but were a no show against Vaughan.

Yes, I do criticize the NDP for not being very adept at organizing. That is why I pointed out that any fears Vaughan might have about an Civic NDP machine can be laid to rest. It no longer exists, as much as it ever did. Now, the NDP is simply irrelevant, as far as Vaughan is concerned.

Where did I attribute that thought to you?

So your position is now that nothing you said related to anything I said about the proposed amendment providing that the NDP would only "support" victims of police brutality who were "peaceful". Ok, well all I did was outline further the problems with that amendment, in real terms.

What could be the possible purpose of amending a generic boilerplate denunciation of "police brutality" in circumstances where it is completely clear and evident that there were numerous cases of unwarranted force used by the police in order to suppress peaceful protest?

Honestly, the amendment only serves to hopelessly muddy the waters by implying that there was widespread violence by a lot of protesters, when in fact, those cases are very few indeed. It is only reinforce the position of the authorities, and given that the police will invariably accuse people who accuse them of police brutality, basically make it a motion to support no one, since all stand accused of "violent" activities.

They treated Torontonians like cattle.