Deal to extend Afghanistan mission without vote. part IV

But Jack Layton chooses what issues to address in his question segment of the proceedings, is there no way he could have addressed the issue of the motion at that point in time? Why did he suddenly shift focus to the issue of child detainees, as if that question could not be raised at some other point, after the motion was voted on?

Speaking to a Bloc motion would not be seen as partisan... and what is this new excuse about not wanting to be "partisan". Isn't that why we have parties... to be partisan and express differing views from the opposition? Why suddenly this need to be not disagreeing?

From what I can see, nothing was said in the house, so what was there to print?

No one said anything. What is there to report?

Layton addressed questions to Stephen Harper on the day that the motion was to be voted on and did not mention the motion, even though he spoke to the issue of Afghanistan by asking questions about "child detainees".

Therefore, there was nothing that Jack Layton said about the issue of the motion or the extension that could be reported. They might have decided to report on the issue of child detainees, and they chose not to report on that.

Then you have been misled.

Jack Layton and the NDP have only called for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan once since 2006 and that was last week.

Nothing appears on the radar if there is nothing to report.

Yes, the point above, which you know I am talking about. my question to you is why you are pretending you don't know that I am pointing out that Jack Layton did absolutely nothing to argue the case for the BQ motion on the war, which we all thought was going to be his moment to make a stand on the issue of withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Instead of making an issue of that, and perhap giving interested journalists a something to report, like a statement from the leader of the NDP, or a firey exchange between Harper and Layton, Layton said nothing. Hence, there is nothing to report from Parliament Hill regading the antiwar movment, since it didn't show up in Parliament and did not make a statement against the war.

God, I can't leave you guys alone for a half a day, can I.  The bleeping motion was last Thursday.

Cueball: please introduce yourself to Google or learn how to use Hansard Search before you launch yourself into these fatuous accusations again.

ottawaobserver wrote:

God, I can't leave you guys alone for a half a day, can I.  The bleeping motion was last Thursday.

Cueball: please introduce yourself to Google or learn how to use Hansard Search before you launch yourself into these fatuous accusations again.

The vote was today, Tuesday. As I pointed out Layton chose today to talk about child detainees, not the motion, which he did not even mention. I see no reason why he could not have again raised the issue of the motion when he addressed questions at the Prime Minister.

Quote:

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP):
  Mr. Speaker, my petition has been signed by dozens of Canadians who are calling for an end to Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

 

    In May 2008, Parliament passed a resolution to withdraw Canadian Forces by July, 2011. The Prime Minister, with agreement from the Liberal Party, broke his promise to honour the parliamentary motion and, furthermore, refuses to put it to a parliamentary vote in this House.

 

    Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a danger to our troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada.

 

    The polls show that a clear majority of Canadians do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Prime Minister to honour the will of Parliament and bring the troops home now.

Jim Maloway managed to sneak in a comment, but Layton was MIA:

Perhaps you can explain that to me, as opposed to being an elitist snob advising me on how to use google, and how to read Hansard (where I read Layton's comments from today), why don't you take a course in effective communication.

hey Ottawa Observer: re how to search Hansard

THANKS

People are making non-factual statements about the NDP, and I am correcting them. The NDP has not been a stalwart advocate of the troops out view in Parliament. I guess it really comes down to what one sees the duty of a political party is. Some people seems to think that popular opinion should drive party direction, I personally think that a party has a duty to create political public space for its political views.

As an example, there is really no evidence whatsoever that trying to cleave the "sensible" line on Afghanistan has done the NDP any good at all. If, they had taken the position I took in 2001 they Jack Harris would not been in the position today of appologizing for the NDP's overt support for the war prior to 2006, nor would you be answering questions about the NDP's wavering on the issue since 2006.

Nor would I be able to factually say that someone in Pat Martin's office doesn't know what they are talking about, or is misleading Acramer by saying the NDP is now, and always has been against the war. It is simply not a fact. NDP position has evolved substantially over time, and now it seems they have finally understood the message.

On the other hand, were it the case that the NDP had been clear sighted enough to oppose the war right from the begining, on principle, like I did, as opposed to falling for the humanitarian propaganda tropes that the liberal intelligencia and 9/11 "War on Terror" hysteria used to justify the war in the first place. Jack Harris, and Jack Layton would be able to proudly tell the Prime Minister that the NDP has always opposed the war.

Had there been a principled voice in parliament saying that the Liberals were naive in believing the peace, order and good government can be deduced through violence and war, and that the Conservatives were selling snake oil when they claimed there was a humanitarian frame to the conflict,  then Harper would not be able to throw the humanitarian "good works" back in Jack Layton during question period, the same terms under which all of the parties

Layton would simply be able to say that Harper was naive idealist who is not wise to the ways of the world. Wouldn't that be nice? The NDP casting itself as the cold, pragmatic realists in the face of the foolish naivete of the Liberals and the Conservatives, eh Ken?

In so doing they would at the same time have limited the operable frame of the contest in terms of what leeway the Conservatives and the Liberals have to prosecute the war, encouraged the movement, and built a solid political base across party lines by taking a consistent stand on a position shared by the majority of Canadians. In the process numerous lives might have been saved.

All by simply telling the truth.

You are what theologians call a literalist, and exactly what is needed in confrontation with other literalists. 

Good show.

The record is clear Ken. The NDP has consistently supported the underlying ideological framing of the mission, almost unanimously, since the invasion. Accepting at face value the project outline as a humanitarian effort, with a military component. The "good war' depends on the mythology.

Not only that we have countless statements from the leadership asserting those values, and as I have pointed out before, Jack Layton has consistently proposed an end to the "combat mission" in "southern" Afghanistan, and not a withdrawal from Afghanistan in total. The Conservative have shown excellent use of this ammunition provided by the liberal intelligentsia and the NDP, and are using it in spades during these debates about the extension, claiming that they are ending the "combat mission" in "Southern Afghanistan"  in the support of "humanitarian" objectives, mimicking the line that the NDP has used consistently over the years.

Glad it was useful, NoDiff.

Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth), NDP wrote:

 Mr. Speaker, I imagine that that everyone can understand why the Prime Minister is worried that his allies are again changing their position, but that is no justification for pushing Parliament aside. Our soldiers are too important. Canada has done more than its share in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister needs to acknowledge that and bring our troops home.

Hansard

It took a few years of teeth pulling, but this is a glimpse of what clarity might look like in the absence of weasel caveats like 'combat mission,' 'southern Afghanistan.'

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In the '80's the NDP had banners at all the rallies not so much anymore.

My guess would be that many of the fiery idealists from that era have since retired or died off, and what we're left to contend with is the cold pragmatism of collaboration. The earlier passion of the NDP's activism in support of the debate surrounding real questions and solutions has been replaced by a passion for seeing debate and activism shut down as soon as possible.

So in your view the draft had no effect on the size of the anti-war movement in America during the Vietnam war?  You are entitled to that view no matter how absurd it sounds to me.

Canadians don't show up for drafts either.  In WW1 when they sent draft notices to Canadians to report for duty the majority just ignored them. Of course the anti-war activists were targeted and some like Ginger murdered.  But the war ended with the Allies victory not because of the anti-imperial, anti-war movement led by the Wobblies.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0...

I don't agree that the draft became toothless.  To me having a prison sentence hanging over ones head for not reporting is a real and present danger. 

Slumberjack wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In the '80's the NDP had banners at all the rallies not so much anymore.

My guess would be that many of the fiery idealists from that era have since retired or died off, and what we're left to contend with is the cold pragmatism of collaboration. The earlier passion of the NDP's activism in support of the debate surrounding real questions and solutions has been replaced by a passion for seeing debate and activism shut down as soon as possible.

Slumberjack's nailed it exactly