tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81209823992369851422024-03-13T15:23:25.690-04:00Sudbury Steve May(Mainly) Political Musings from "Sudbury" Steve MaySudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comBlogger566125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-35050868610849661272022-03-02T12:30:00.001-05:002022-03-02T12:30:21.208-05:00Putin's Invasion of Ukraine is Unconscionable. It's Time for NATO and the World to Do What We Must.<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is very difficult for me to write. Like many Canadians – and indeed, like many around the world, I’ve watched in horror as Russian President Vladimir Putin commanded Russia’s armed forces to invade Ukraine. I’ve seen the response – from Canada, and from the world. Certainly, the nations and peoples of our planet have come together in a completely unprecedented way to condemn Putin’s abominable aggression towards his neighbour.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjCSWQlu34c6oLlqJUb0JlQTxjL5_IjveOZdd_YiWLhFHI_OMuk3hdHVvjbLDzRVE0rsOSLwQtmnDxBuqdUlhtvWK0Cww2uDuoeqW-2ZTeV2Y-GpfpAfYwg8NzFku29k6m3OZyqyi4uyMraN8cZhZ1ZBwPKUMDUz3tzteLF_jf5FS0AL30uceVvfTM8Pg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="532" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjCSWQlu34c6oLlqJUb0JlQTxjL5_IjveOZdd_YiWLhFHI_OMuk3hdHVvjbLDzRVE0rsOSLwQtmnDxBuqdUlhtvWK0Cww2uDuoeqW-2ZTeV2Y-GpfpAfYwg8NzFku29k6m3OZyqyi4uyMraN8cZhZ1ZBwPKUMDUz3tzteLF_jf5FS0AL30uceVvfTM8Pg=w200-h195" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sudbury Steve May</span></td></tr></tbody></table></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And yet, I feel it deep inside of me that the response, as extraordinary as it has been, is not living up to the moment of this crisis. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Look, although I’ve always been interested in history and war, the fact is I hate war with an unrivaled passion. Carl von Clauswitz might have famously called war, “merely the continuation of politics with other means,” but for me, war is an obscenity. It ought to be considered an archaic remnant of a violent past that our species long ago left behind. But like Clauswitz, I’m also a realist, and I know war and politics today continue to go hand in hand, as war, politics and morality often have little to do with one another, to our collective shame.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Putin has manufactured a crisis, and under the guise of lies, he’s launched a military invasion of a neighbouring nation. It is plain and clear to the rest of the world that this attack is both illegal and immoral. Nation after nation has condemned Putin. Corporations, churches, charities, all levels of government, sports organizations – all are doing their part to isolate Putin. And common people across the globe have taken to the streets to send a message to the Russian people that Putin’s act of naked aggression against Ukraine is unacceptable. Even in Russia itself, where protesting the government means putting one’s health and well-being at risk, we have seen masses of people in public squares demanding an end to war.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And yet, it is not enough. Yes, at some point global economic sanctions might start to have a measurable impact and force Putin to call off the invasion. But how long does the world wait? Until Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odessa are smoldering ruins? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We are showing our support for Ukraine, an embattled democratic nation that is fighting tenaciously for its life. We do this not because we believe Ukraine to be unflawed and worthy of our unconditional support. We show our support because we know that despite whatever imperfections Ukraine’s government may harbor, Ukraine and its people are victims of a bully’s aggression. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We teach our children to stand up to bullies. That doesn’t mean we teach them to pick fights. Or to fight bullies on behalf of those being bullied. When an individual stands up to a bully on the schoolgrounds, there is always a chance that the bully will lash out in violence. Our children instinctively know that a bully can only be shamed when they stand together even as the threat of violence hangs over their heads.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Yes, it’s easy and inappropriate to compare Putin to a schoolyard bully, given that Putin has nuclear missiles. Yet the comparison resonates on other levels. Without question, we know that it is moral and just to pick a side in this conflict – because just as bullying is an unacceptable practice in the schoolyard, so to is the violation of the international order that we are watching unfold on our devices in real time. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Putin’s invasion is wrong, and we all know it. So, are we going to stand up for Ukraine or just continue to watch it being knocked around by Putin, time and again, until at last it is no longer able to stand on its feet? What kind of friend to Ukraine would that make us? What kind of person stands by and shouts from the sidelines when they see such an injustice?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There are those that say we risk nuclear annihilation should NATO’s military and Putin’s cross swords. I agree that there would be significant risk, and that the outcome of nuclear war is simply unthinkable. It is Putin – and not Ukraine or NATO – who set these events in motion, believing that might makes right – or at least that might can prevail as long as Putin threatens intervenors with nuclear destruction. I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time accepting that Putin or any other nuclear armed power can extort the world to sit back and watch as their militaries lay waste to whichever people or nation they’ve added to their personal enemies list.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I’m glad that Canada has been playing an important role in rallying the international community to take action against Putin. I hate war, and I long for peace. And yet I fear that peace will only come when NATO stands up for Ukraine with more than words and sanctions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has asked NATO to create a no-fly zone over his nation. NATO has said it will not do so, because that would be interpreted as an act of war by Putin. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I understand the consequences of implementing a no fly zone very well. The risks are grave. But the outcome of allowing a nuclear-armed bully to succeed in subjugating its neighbour simply because it can is unfathomable. It is just, right and moral to stand up to Putin. It’s time NATO and other nations did so, collectively. Not to start a war, but rather to finish one. </span></p><div><br /></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-88768877464123725122021-10-20T16:51:00.001-04:002021-10-20T16:51:00.252-04:00Killing the KED is the Low-Hanging Fruit for Fiscal and Environmental Sustainability in Greater Sudbury<span style="font-family: verdana;">
I have been a part of several recent online discussions on the subject of the costs of urban sprawl to taxpayers. I've seen this come up in response to recent media about municipal tax increases (and what's driving the need for higher taxes - see: "Keeping Sudbury's tax hike to three per cent will be a challenge: city staff," the Sudbury Star, October 15 2021). And I've seen it come up in response to an article from Sudbury dot com about how some rich land-owning developers and one municipal councilor are eagerly encouraging sprawl development along the Kingsway, due to the KED (see: "<a href="https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/business-owners-anticipate-boom-around-kingsway-entertainment-district-4528259?fbclid=IwAR2H9dONLTDuiU_CVMluTz93ryJ31Hnn9oXsWfZbAkuPCji7J1FvE6F7M1I">Business owners anticipate boom around Kingsway Entertainment District</a>," Sudbury dot com, October 19, 2021). </span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">A recent report on the costs of sprawl in the City of Ottawa is being cited by urban activists and taxpayers groups. This report, by Hemson Consulting, pegged the costs of servicing new residential sprawl development as being $465 per resident per year - costs beyond what are collected by homeowners in the form of taxes and fees. That means that every single resident of the City of Ottawa is subsidizing generally well-to-do homeowners living in sprawling suburbs (see: "<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/urban-expansion-costs-menard-memo-1.6193429?fbclid=IwAR2TnK6tZ5Tmd7gIo7FiHNcFfXVTjbpHmA4b_nMbCqSuI4GWpZlkP_cMgrw">Suburban expansion costs increase to $465 per person per year in Ottawa</a>," CBC, September 29 2021). </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">In contrast, high density infill development was found to contribute over $600 per resident, annually, to the City's coffers. Meaning, residents living in high-density buildings, often renters, are paying more than their fair share for the costs of servicing development.
This is, of course, the opposite of equity - those who can pay more are paying the least - actually receiving a subsidy for their profligate lifestyle choices - while those with the least disposable income to spare are asked to subsidize the rich - generally speaking, of course. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Some will write off the study as being specific to Ottawa. And it is. Others will claim that it only looked at residential development, so it's not right to think that the same might be true for other forms of development, like commercial. And of course, that's valid - but only to a certain extent.
Market forces at work in Ottawa on residential development are not all that different than those in play here in Greater Sudbury - except maybe for the actual costs of maintaining things like roads, bridges and pipes are probably more expensive here than in Ottawa because of our colder climate and rock-hard northerly terrain. So costs to provide services here are probably higher, requiring a deeper subsidy for sprawl development. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Our city's lack of fiscal health can be traced easily to the bad development decisions that were made in the pat to facilitate a costly form of suburban and ex-urban sprawl that valued getting around in personal motorized vehicles above all else. We've known this for decades, and every additional study like the Hemson Ottawa study should be one more nail in the coffin of sprawl development.
And yet, it isn't. We may be doing a slightly better job of intensifying existing and new development forms, but clearly the studies are continuing to show a preference for subsidizing well-to-do suburban lifestyle choices in preference to sound economic decisions to stop sprawl. We could have lower tax increases. We could have lower greenhouse gas emissions. But because we keep choosing sprawl, our decisions work against our community's economic health and that of the planet. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">And this isn't just a Greater Sudbury issue by any means. The City of Hamilton, too, is presently facing an existential threat to fiscal sustainability in the form of the provincial government insisting it identify more lands than it needs for anticipated development, because rich developers with links to the government want to be able to make money. My good friend Lilly Noble discusses this in her recent piece for the Hamilton Spectator, "<a href="https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/2021/10/18/doug-ford-wants-developer-profits-over-healthy-growth.html">Doug Ford wants developer profits over healthy growth</a>," October 18 2021. </span></div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qt6PYyHuHvQ/YXB4EKTWnjI/AAAAAAAABZY/iA9V0zDJgq0aJi-D4utAAGSlhDWQs6cFwCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><img alt="" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="721" height="173" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qt6PYyHuHvQ/YXB4EKTWnjI/AAAAAAAABZY/iA9V0zDJgq0aJi-D4utAAGSlhDWQs6cFwCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Photo Credit: CBC News</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />It's all got to stop. Here in Greater Sudbury, it clearly must start with the Kingsway Entertainment District - an incredibly ill-conceived and expensive project for which there is no actual need. The KED is the low-hanging fruit for a city that has declared a climate emergency, and which professes to have interest in keeping municipal tax increases at a reasonable level. The KED is a symbol of the future that we want: to continue on the road to poor economic health for our communities, or to finally start getting serious about economic and environmental sustainability.</span></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-16678765294853167242021-09-27T22:39:00.002-04:002021-09-28T09:42:11.065-04:00Annamie Paul is (Almost) Gone. Can the Green Party Survive What Comes Next?<p> <span style="font-family: verdana;">Annamie Paul is in the process of resigning her leadership of the Green Party of Canada. Good. By any reasonable metric, Paul's tenure as leader has been a mitigated disaster for the Party ("mitigated" only by the victory of Mike Morrice in Kitchener Centre in the recent federal election - a victory that had little to do with Paul, and probably occurred despite her). And now, Paul apparently can't even resign without controversy, after everybody in Canada mistook what she said at her press conference earlier today as a resignation - rather than beginning the process of resigning.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Yes, Paul faced some significant challenges to her leadership - including the very serious restrictions imposed upon her by the Party's Federal Council, which denied her funding that would otherwise have gone to mount a campaign in Toronto Centre. But Toronto Centre was always a pipe dream - and whether one agrees with the actions of the Party's (now former) Federal Council, it's difficult to dispute that their actions ended up saving the party money that it didn't have.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Noah Zaztman</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The writing really was on the wall for Paul's leadership after Paul's disastrous silence related to Noah Zaztman, her senior advisor and spokesperson, as he was sometimes characterized by the media. If you're not familiar with Zaztman and his Facebook post smearing Green MP's Paul Manly and Jenica Atwin, you might want to read what I wrote earlier about this sordid affair: "<a href="http://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2021/05/green-mps-and-ndp-leader-engaged-in.html">Green MPs and NDP Leader Engaged in Anti-Semitism, Says Senior Advisor to Green Party Leader</a>," Sudbury Steve May, May 19 2021.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PyqphftvEf8/YVJj01wXLbI/AAAAAAAABYs/VyQ57Nai9xgZQyx-fglo9V-rc6t-O0sXACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="319" data-original-width="749" height="170" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PyqphftvEf8/YVJj01wXLbI/AAAAAAAABYs/VyQ57Nai9xgZQyx-fglo9V-rc6t-O0sXACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h170/image.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Screencap of Statement from Noah Zaztman</td></tr></tbody></table><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana;">The net result of Paul's silence regarding Zaztman's accusation of anti-Semitism and vow to work to defeat sitting Green Party MP's was to see one of those MP's, Fredericton's Jenica Atwin, call it a day with the Party and cross the floor to join the Liberal Party. Rather than taking any responsibility that her own silence led directly to that outcome, Paul decided it would be better to blame Justin Trudeau and to accuse him of not being a feminist, and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland as being nothing more than "Trudea's shield" - accusations which prompted strong reactions among Liberals and Greens alike, for different reasons (see: "</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">‘</span><a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7957996/green-party-annamie-paul-freeland-trudeau-female-shield/" style="font-family: verdana;">I am not a token:’ Freeland fires back at Paul’s accusation she is Trudeau’s ‘female shield’</a><span style="font-family: verdana;">, Global News, June 17 2021). Former Green Party leader Elizabeth May would go on to state, "To me, that's deeply shocking that was allowed to happen without him [Zaztman] being reprimanded and immediately removed. This was not a grey area. This was a serious transgression for anyone in any leader's office in any party in the history of any democracy that I can think of. It was deeply unacceptable. That's why we lost Jenica." ("</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/09/02/Supposed-To-Be-Green-Party-Moment/">This Was Supposed to Be the Green Party’s Moment</a>," Christopher Guly, The Tyee, September 2, 2021).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I can't help but note that Jenica Atwin was recently returned to Parliament at the MP for Fredericton in the recent federal election.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Paul Manly, who stuck it out with the Green Party despite the leader's office attack on his good reputation, narrowly lost his seat in Nanaimo-Ladysmith - a victim of the Party's devastating showing at the polls under Paul's leadership. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>A Struggle for the Soul of the Green Party</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">On her way out the door today, Paul did make a profound statement that really resonated with me - although I suspect that she had something different in mind that what immediately sprung to my mind. I think it's fair to say that there has been on-going dissension within the Green Party, much of it lately focused on Paul's leadership, and the accusations of racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism directed at un-named party individuals by Paul and her supporters. While it is clear to me that racism and anti-Semitism exist within the Party, I don't believe that they are responsible for creating the fundamental divisions within the Party - divisions that can no longer be ignored now with Paul's (soon to be) departure.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">These divisions began to erupt in last year's leadership contest, which saw Paul narrowly defeat leadership contestant Dimitri Lascaris on the seventh ballot. The conflict within the Party itself can be characterized by the personalities of these two contestants: Paul, promoting her intersectionality and a desire to shift the conversation within the Green Party away from the climate crisis and the environment in an effort to broaden the Party's appeal, especially around issues pertaining to diversity - but beyond that, largely a supporter of the status quo, and perceived by many Greens to largely be a bridge of continuity between herself and former leader Elizabeth May. Lascaris, an outsider whose primary interests have been on the conflict in Palestine, who wanted to transform the Green Party into an eco-socialist movement, shifting the conversation within the Party away from the climate crisis and the environment in an effort to broaden the Party's appeal to the hard Left.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And that choice - between a progressive, forward-thinking party that continues to take the slogan, "Not left, not right, but forward" seriously, and an often regressive, myopic and rigid hard left view that wants to bring down capitalism as the first step in dealing with the climate crisis. Yes, my bias is showing - but make no mistake, this is the struggle for the soul of the Party that Annamie Paul was referring to in her resignation/non-resignation speech today.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">For me, it's actually an interesting conflict, because I understand where both sides are coming from. Look, I understand the perils of capitalism quite well - I've been railing against the pursuit of growth in this blogspace for over a decade. I get that we can't continue to grow our economy in a world constrained by finite resources. I get it. Capitalism is a huge issue, and we really need to start reeling it in - in my opinion. But, on the other hand, I can't help but to acknowledge that there is a) no political will to tackle capitalism, and any serious party that advocates its overthrow at this point won't be taken seriously for long; and, b) we are running out of time to take real action to get greenhouse gas emissions under control, and if we don't do so very soon - debates about capitalism vs. socialism aren't going to matter much, as our resource-constrained world is going to have a thing or two to say about what happens next. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Some Greens have characterized this division in the context of the conflicts experienced by other Green Parties - the "Realos" vs. the "Fundis" - but that's really not the best fit here. Those debates have often been around issues that the Green Party of Canada has not had to seriously confront yet - whether it's realistic to sacrifice some of one's stated goals and platform in order to have influence in other areas of policy development or governance, vs. sticking to the moral high ground and not abandoning an iota of principle. Green Parties in Germany (where the term comes from) and Ireland have notably had these internal debates.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But that's not what's really going on inside the Green Party of Canada. Our internal conflict is characterized by questions around whether it makes more sense to try to achieve sustainability and avert a climate catastrophe while working within the current economic paradigm, or whether the entirety of that paradigm has to be first discarded before progress can be achieved.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I've been observing how this conflict has played out within the Party for years now. And I regret to say that I see little hope for a way forward with a united Party that tries to advocate for working within and against a capitalist system simultaneously. And that's really interesting to me, because the values of the Global Greens are not based on capitalism, and indeed the policies of the Party, while acknowledging the capitalist reality of our present circumstance, certainly are not particularly pro-capitalist. From where I sit, they're pretty anti-capitalist. But they don't appear to be anti-capitalist enough for many on the regressive hard Left.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Carbon Fee and Dividend</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Which brings us to the crux of the debate. Presently, the Green Party of Canada has a policy in place that supports putting a price on carbon pollution which returns collected costs to individual Canadians. It's fairly similar to the carbon backstop that the Government of Canada has negotiated with the provinces under the present Liberal government - but to support a much higher carbon fee, the Green Party also advocates for international border adjustments, to better protect trade-exposed industries. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is anathema to the hard Left of the Party - who have been (in my opinion) taken in by journalists like Naomi Klein, rather than by economists within our own Party, like Sudbury's own Dr. David Robinson. Klein and others on the regressive left have argued that we will never lower emissions by working within a capitalist framework. They point to the incredible lack of success that we've experienced trying to do just that. They would rather top-down regulatory approaches to cap the carbon pollution of big emitters - which ironically was the same emissions plan being advanced by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper back in the day. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The hard Left, though, would argue that they'll have more success in actually reducing emissions by nationalizing industry - allowing the government greater flexibility to pick winners and losers, and to shut polluting industries down in order to further advance low-carbon policies and programs. I'm sure it would work - it's a command and control economy they're talking about here, and we know that some countries have been able to bend the will of industry to meet their own political needs. We saw that happen in the 20th Century in places like the Soviet Union.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Even those on the hard Left that exercise a little caution about nationalization are reluctant to give much credence to any market-driven policy or program, like Carbon Fee and Dividend or the Liberal's carbon backstop. From a hard left perspective, if you're working with the market, you're corrupted by the market, and reinforcing - rather than reducing - the impacts of capitalism. And the notion of returning to people the carbon costs collected through any form of pollution pricing is just not on for the hard Left. Despite the carbon dividend being a form of wealth redistribution that works to the advantage of those least well off, because it is distributed equitably among all Canadians, it is loathed by the Left, who would rather see the government use it to fund additional carbon-reducing programs.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And you know what? I understand that. I get it. We're collecting all of this money and just giving it away. That seems like a missed opportunity. But it's not, because it's based on sound economic principles. Greens want to see a very high price put on carbon - high enough that it's actually going to lead to influencing people's lifestyle choices and economic decisions. That means that the costs of a lot of important things (like gasoline, home heating fuels and food) would have to rise, in some cases significantly. If that money were kept and put to good use by the government, there would be rioting in the streets (look at how upset people were during the election campaign when the word "inflation" was uttered for the first time in over a decade). A high carbon price, which is necessary to have an impact on lowering emissions, would be an absolute political failure unless money was returned equitably to all who are paying the costs.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But economics has never really been a forte of those on the Left. It's the ideology that matters.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And this conflict between a hard Left ideologically-pure Green Party and a Green Party that wants to stay the course and remain out in front on important environmental and social issues is going to be the next serious challenge that the Green Party is going to have to face. This time next year, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that looking back, we'll be lamenting how easy it was to get rid of a leader who had lost the moral authority of the membership to lead - and be left wondering just what the heck we're going to do now, mired in an acrimonious Green vs. Green debate between a regressive hard Left and progressive forward-thinking wings of the Party. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I honestly don't think we're going to emerge unscathed here. You can bet that there's going to be serious political maneuvering going forward on both sides. As with the leadership contest, most Greens actually won't be paying any attention - votes will be cast for a leader based on perceptions around personality, just as they're always cast. But engaged Greens on both sides are going to find themselves in what can only be described as a battle for the soul of the Party. It's a battle that only one side can win, given the incompatible ideologies here. Many, like me, saw this play out during the last leadership contest, and we were appalled by its nastiness - and in some cases, by its racist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic overtones - most of which came from new Green members and supporters on the hard Left, in my observation. Many of these new Greens were, like Lascaris, former members of the NDP. Some, though, have been Greens for longer than I've been a Party member. And it was really sad to see.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But it's a good reminder that when Annamie Paul says that she experienced racism, sexism and anti-Semitism, believe her - even if you, like me, are happy that the Party is now able to move on after her disastrous stint as leader. She may have made a terrible leader, but she was not wrong about the abuse that she and others have experienced from members of the Party. And I fear that it's only going to get nastier.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Consensus Candidate</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Might there be someone out there - somewhere - who can bring the progressives and the hard Left together, and continue to unite them under one Green banner, at least for the next little while? If such a candidate exists, they would need to have credibility with both sides. To me that seems to rule out just about everybody who ran in the last leadership contest, with the possible exception of Dr. Amita Kuttner - who, for the life of me, I could never figure out just what, if anything, they actually stood for. Clearly, I think Kuttner would be a poor choice for different reasons.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And I think we can rule out provincial Green leaders as well, as Peter Bevan-Baker, Mike Schreiner and David Coon are all firmly encamped on the progressive side of the divide. Other leaders, like Sonia Furstenau, probably wouldn't want the job either (although Furstenau could, potentially, be a consensus candidate). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Our caucus consists of only two elected MP's. I love Elizabeth May, but I think it's fair to say that she could not at this point pass herself off as a consensus candidate. That leaves Mike Morrice, the new MP from Kitchener-Centre, who by all accounts did a bang-up job working with his team pretty much since the ballots in 2019 were all counted. But Morrice is/was a vocal Annamie Paul supporter, and it's doubtful that the eco-socialists could accept him.</span></p><p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1eogB6tQ8VQ/YVJ_th_BQRI/AAAAAAAABY0/Gr6LdtOYL20u2ud8G0eLuNVS7eGxSXbdACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="368" data-original-width="297" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1eogB6tQ8VQ/YVJ_th_BQRI/AAAAAAAABY0/Gr6LdtOYL20u2ud8G0eLuNVS7eGxSXbdACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="194" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paul Manly</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana;">To my mind, there is only one potential candidate with the bona fides to unite the Party, and that's Paul Manly. He's got the parliamentary experience to appeal to the progressives, and his taken a stronger position on Israel/Palestine than the Party has been willing to take. While I don't believe Manly can be caharacterized as an anti-capitalist, he's certainly a social democrat. And he's worked very closely with Elizabeth May since becoming MP of Nanaimo-Ladysmith. And did I mention that he was the MP for Nanaimo-Ladysmith up until last week - which means his home riding is one of the few that Greens can tag as "winnable" even if he didn't win there most recently. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Manly may be our best hope for some semblance of party unity, going forward. Whose going to help convince him that his Party really, really needs him right now for this important task?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-24476070924960671612021-06-02T12:13:00.001-04:002021-06-02T13:13:59.987-04:00My Personal Expression of Anger Over an Intolerable Situation in the Green Party of Canada<p> </p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Something truly unprecedented is happening right now in the Green Party of Canada, and it has made me angrier than I've ever been since I became engaged in politics. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">As truly unbelievable as this sounds, two of the Green Party's three elected Members of Parliament, Jenica Atwin (Fredericton) and Paul Manly (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) have been labelled anti-Semites by Green Party Leader Annamie Paul's office. Even more than that, Paul's office has vowed to work to defeat these two MP's.</span></p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wW5abqO9t20/YLe4t8LMXGI/AAAAAAAABXU/aKGXFjmFSGklixnXb7VgiDYSkX23KHgmQCLcBGAsYHQ/s697/Capture4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="697" data-original-width="627" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wW5abqO9t20/YLe4t8LMXGI/AAAAAAAABXU/aKGXFjmFSGklixnXb7VgiDYSkX23KHgmQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Capture4.JPG" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Green Party MP Jenica Atwin (Fredericton)</span></td></tr></tbody></table></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">That a party leader's office has issued a strong statement about their own MP's is very unusual, but not unprecedented. Recall that Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole and his office was recently publicly critical of Hastings-Lennox and Addington MP Derek Sloan, before the Conservative caucus gave Sloan the boot (he now sits as an Independent).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">What's completely different here, though, is that Paul's office has taken the egregious step of labeling Atwin and Manly as anti-Semites, without providing a single shred of evidence. Labels like this can tarnish the reputations of good people - even if they are not true. We all know what the internet is like, and even a whiff of an unfounded accusation can linger around an individual, poisoning their professional working environment.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qhP5Qwwx_F4/YLe47sSsJrI/AAAAAAAABXY/R1jD9XsaXIc-Si0MDn5K2Az_xWv8FHKgACLcBGAsYHQ/s387/Capture5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="373" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qhP5Qwwx_F4/YLe47sSsJrI/AAAAAAAABXY/R1jD9XsaXIc-Si0MDn5K2Az_xWv8FHKgACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Capture5.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Green Party MP Paul Manly (Nanaimo-Ladysmith)</td></tr></tbody></table></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">If for some reason you don't believe me, just do a quick Google Search of "Jenica Atwin anti-Semite" and see what Google gives you. It's a number of articles written in the past few weeks about why some Greens are now calling Atwin anti-Semitic. There are a few links to articles posted in her defense as well. My point is that this is not something that there should have ever have been a conversation about in the first place, and the only reason Atwin's reputation has taken a hit is because the Green Party Leader's office targeted her with unfounded smears.</span></p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WQOLkcntmvo/YLeZw2Yy-AI/AAAAAAAABW8/hbHoZVjEEPMclYFOhZtWZ-sXk7t20jOOgCLcBGAsYHQ/s931/Capture1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="931" data-original-width="782" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WQOLkcntmvo/YLeZw2Yy-AI/AAAAAAAABW8/hbHoZVjEEPMclYFOhZtWZ-sXk7t20jOOgCLcBGAsYHQ/w336-h400/Capture1.JPG" width="336" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Google Search, June 2 2021</span></td></tr></tbody></table></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Background</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">How did all of this come about? I documented the beginning of this disgusting episode in a recent blogpost (see:"<a href="https://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2021/05/green-mps-and-ndp-leader-engaged-in.html" target="_blank">Green MPs and NDP Leader Engaged in Anti-Semitism, Says Senior Advisor to Green Party Leader</a>," Sudbury Steve May, May 19 2021). Since then, Noah Zatzman, Annamie Paul's senior advisor, has spoken further with the media, to clarify his now-deleted Facebook post, assuring the CBC that he did not originally mean to imply that former Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands) was to be one of the MP's targeted for removal (see:"<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-palestinian-gaza-canada-1.6044837">Violence in Gaza and Israel has left behind a changed political landscape in Canada</a>," Evan Dyer, CBC, May 29 2021). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Since screenshots of Zaztman's Facebook post first started making the rounds on social media, Paul has had considerable opportunity to set the record straight about whether the post was a one-off from an office advisor gone rogue - which I have to say, certainly appeared to me to be the case. Zaztman's Facebook post, while expressing real emotional pain on his part, is nevertheless expressed through a distorted lens an alternate reality that is completely unrecognizable. Calling for the defeat of sitting Green MP's and their replacement with "progressive climate champions that are antifa and pro LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!!!" is not the sort of statement that one could ever expect to be seen coming from the Green Party Leader's office.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Recent Developments</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Yet Paul remained silent. After this weekend's piece by the CBC's Evan Dyer, the rest of the mainstream media started picking up this story. After Monday, May 31st press conference convened by Paul to state the Green Party's response to the mass grave recently found at a former residential school site, and to discuss Bill C-12, the government bill that will establish a climate target framework that Greens will not be supporting. But instead of questions from the media about either of these two hot political topics, Paul was grilled on what was characterized by the media as being a "rift" over the Party's response on Israel / Palestine. Paul had a public opportunity to state her support for MPs Atwin and Manly. There was no suggestion that Zaztman's point of view was his own, and that she did not share it. Paul decided to say only what amounted to nothing more than she wouldn't get involved in this conversation, while reminding the press that she remains committed in her opposition to anti-Semitism. (see: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJfLiuuk1VE" target="_blank">Youtube video</a>, CPAC, May 31 2021).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">That appears to have been the greenlight for her proxy Zaztman to go on a media offensive, laying the groundwork for the eventual expulsion of Atwin and Manly. Yesterday, Zaztman told the Canadian Press that it was terminology used by Atwin and Manly ('apartheid' and 'ethnic cleansing') to describe the situation on the ground in Israel, Gaza and the Occupied Territories that amounted to anti-Semitism (see: "<a href="https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2021/06/01/green-party-rift-over-israeli-palestinian-conflict-grows-as-mps-break-from-leader/#.YLZLn_lKiUn">Green party rift over Israeli-Palestinian conflict grows as MPs break from leader</a>," Christopher Reynolds, Canadian Press, June 1 2021). The use of these words by Atwin and Manly, in the context of the larger issue of Israel / Palestine within the Party, appear to be, in Zaztman's opinion at least, holding the Party back from becoming a "mainstream" political party. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Suffice it to say that I completely disagree with that assessment, and am extremely offended by the suggestion that the Green Party of Canada - with elected MP's since 2011 - isn't already a mainstream political force in Canada. And to hear this coming from the spokesperson for the Party Leader's office is just maddeningly offensive. Hence my anger.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But Zatzman wasn't done. In speaking to the French-language La Presse, Zaztman specifically and cavalierly alluded to the need for the Party to get rid of Jenica Atwin, in order to join the mainstream (see: "Les verts se déchirent sur le conflit israélo-palestinien," Mélanie Marquis, June 1 2021). </span></p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o6xaNte42nM/YLei6mlOE-I/AAAAAAAABXE/FhXNtXc-T9weW7AD3XGCVKe5j86Brv16gCLcBGAsYHQ/s751/capture2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="751" height="208" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o6xaNte42nM/YLei6mlOE-I/AAAAAAAABXE/FhXNtXc-T9weW7AD3XGCVKe5j86Brv16gCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h208/capture2.JPG" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">From La Presse, June 1 2021</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7CPntPu9uFg/YLejMF4i_kI/AAAAAAAABXM/c9Ylvo1gSrYLbb5R7srkXm_CFFU-JS9xQCLcBGAsYHQ/s758/Capture3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="386" data-original-width="758" height="204" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7CPntPu9uFg/YLejMF4i_kI/AAAAAAAABXM/c9Ylvo1gSrYLbb5R7srkXm_CFFU-JS9xQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h204/Capture3.JPG" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Google Translation of La Presse snip</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>About Me</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I've been involved with the Green Party of Canada since 2007, albeit mainly at the local level as an officer in the Sudbury and Nickel Belt Electoral District Associations. I've never wanted to seek the nomination as a Party candidate, or stand for an internal Party elected position. I've been happy to largely engage with local Greens, express my opinion on matters from the sidelines, and to play the role of occasional shit disturber when I've seen things start to go off the rails in my own Party. I feel that I've been fairly engaged with the Party throughout the years, and I have been proud to tell people that I'm a Green.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I also know very well that my opinion is just that - my opinion, and mine alone. I don't presume to speak for the Party or for anybody else when I'm writing here on my blog, or in my local newspaper, or even on Facebook or Twitter. I used to run disclaimers about this on all of my posts, just in case there was some doubt about on whose behalf I've commenting. I admit that I have the luxury of being able to draw lines fairly easily around offering my own opinions, versus those few rare times where I was speaking or writing on behalf of the Party (such as announcing a General Meeting of the EDA, or a candidate nomination meeting).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Why I Believe that the Leader Condones These Accusations</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">So why am I not giving Noah Zaztman the benefit of the doubt here, that he really has just gone rogue and is not, in fact, speaking on behalf of the Leader's Office when he says things like Atwin and Manly have to go if the Green Party is to become a mainstream political party, because they are anti-Semites? Again, my initial thoughts on all of this were that he just went rogue, for whatever reason. Those thoughts were supported by the fact that he removed his original Facebook post that kicked all of this off. I thought maybe Paul might have had a word with him, telling him he went too far, that as a communications professional, he ought to have known how divisive his statement was, not to mention how much it tarnishes the reputation of elected Green MPs.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Sill, the statement was out there in the public realm. I waited and waited for Annamie Paul to address the egregious and offensive words written by her Senior Advisor, who has acted as a spokesperson for her Office on more than one occasion. But there was only silence. The longer that silence grew, the greater my concern that her silence was if not condoning Zaztman, indicative as some level of support for his statement.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">After Zaztman was given the opportunity this past weekend by the CBC to "clarify" that he never meant to target Elizabeth May in his original comments, I really figured that Paul was going to fire him. At the very least, she now had to say something to the media - to all Canadians, really, and especially members of the Green Party, many of whom have fought much harder than I have to see Green MPs like Atwin and Manly take a seat in the House and advance the interest of our Party. With Zaztman now going to the mainstream media directly to share his thoughts, Paul just couldn't avoid clarifying that Zaztman was speaking only for himself, and that she at least continues to support Atwin and Manly. She needed to create political distance between herself and her office adviser / spokesperson.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Because if she didn't start laying the groundwork to create that political distance, how else could anyone conclude anything other than her support of Zaztman's reality-defying accusations of anti-Semitism directed at Atwin and Manly, along with his call for their defeat? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But instead of creating political distance, she used Monday's press conference to offer tepid support to Zaztman by focusing only on her fight against anti-Semitism.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Anti-Semitism in the Green Party is Real.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Let me back up for a moment and say a little something about this. As an engaged Green, I have been completely shocked and appalled by the rise of anti-Semitism within my Party over the past year or so - pretty much since the beginning of the leadership contest. I know that there has always existed an anti-Semitic element within the Party, but it really has reared its ugly head in a way I've never seen before - coincident with a leadership contest that featured Annamie Paul, who is Jewish. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">This rise in anti-Semitism is real, and should not be discounted by any Green Party member as just being a casualty of a Zionist perspective that suggests some or all of criticism directed at the State of Israel or its Jewish leaders should be considered anti-Semitic. Too many Greens that I've encountered are unwilling to take a hard look at what appears to me to be real, live, disgusting anti-Semitism in the Party - much of it directed at Paul because she is Jewish. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I have zero doubt that when Noah Zaztman and Annamie Paul say they have experienced anti-Semitism from Green Party members and supporters, they are telling the truth. I've seen it, as recently today, posted in online forums by Green Party members. I've seen it on Twitter. In the case of Annamie Paul and the leadership contest, I even documented it in a blogpost (see: "<a href="https://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2020/10/anti-semitism-and-green-party-of.html" target="_blank">Anti-Semitism and the Green Party of Canada's Leadership Contest</a>," Sudbury Steve May, October 1 2020). In a very significant way, it's this anti-Semitism that's led me to take a big step back from my roles in the Green Party. While I remain a member (for now), that too may change unless there is a satisfactory resolution to the current crisis within the Party.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Why I Am A Green</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I understand the importance of the Israel / Palestine issue. I support the Green Party's policies on the matter. I know that for some, it's those policies that brought them to the Green Party - and many of those have been saddened to see that recent responses to current events coming from the Party haven't exactly lived up to, or been completely in-line with member-approved policies. I know this is important.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But it's not why I'm a Green. Yes, it's important. I just wish that what the Green Party had to say about Israel/Palestine would actually have some impact on finding a way to resolve what appears to me to be an intractable situation. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But I'm here for the climate change. More specifically, I'm a Green because I believe the Green Party is the only Party in Canada that is offering voters a complete range of policy solutions that will, if implemented, have a meaningful impact on the climate crisis. As a political person, I also believe that the best way to influence policy decisions is to have a seat at the table - to be on the inside - while co-ordinating in concert with those on the outside, pushing for change. For me, electing Greens to Parliament is all-important, followed by showing voters that the option of electing Green MP's is both sensible and viable.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">As a father of three children under the age of 12, I despair that we are running out of time to taking meaningful action so as to avoid condemning my children - and all children, including those not yet born - to a world far more violent and despairing than the one that I grew up in. I know that we've got to figure a lot of things out - like how to create a more just and equitable society by tackling the significant and gross aspects of capitalism. I know we need to do a lot more work to combat the serious systemic racism that exists in all of our institutions - racism that is holding people back, and holding people down. I know that it's not just here in Canada where Canadians can have some impact on changing the world through our diplomacy and actions - and that includes Israel / Palestine. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But I also know that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the world that we are running out of time to act, and the end of this decade may already be too late. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Why I Am So Damn Angry</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">And that's why I am just so damn angry with what is happening now in the Green Party. I know that there is anti-Semitism in the Party, but the characterization of statements made by MPs Atwin and Manly critical of the State of Israel as being 'anti-Semitic' are not examples of that. And they sure as hell are not reasons to tear the Party apart by calling for their defeat and replacement with 'Zionists'. And even if you thought that shedding these MPs from the Party's roster would lead to a better outcome for the Party, there are sure as hell better, more politically astute ways to do so than by having proxies smear Atwin and Manly in the media with the anti-Semite epithet, and standing by and saying nothing.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">And it's maybe for that last reason that I'm so incredibly appalled by what's been happening. I've sometimes described myself as the Green Party's "most partisan Green" and I've often written about how I wish members of my own Party were more attune to politics than they are. As a political animal, of course I'm going to see this through a political lens. I wanted to give Annamie Paul the benefit of the doubt now for a long while - not just with regards to Zaztman, but also with regards to the similar whisper campaign alleging racism and anti-Semitism directed at the Green Party's elected Federal Council. Paul's former Campaign Manager Sean Yo told the Toronto Star that Paul's friction with Council could only be viewed through the lenses of racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny - without providing any evidence in support.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">We know that just whispering the words "racism" and "anti-Semitism" about individuals is enough to damage people's reputation in the minds of others, even if there is no evidence. When we see allegations of racism and anti-Semitism printed in newspapers and spoken by TV news anchors, we take those allegations very seriously - more seriously than we would a whisper in our ear, or a one-off post on social media. It's all damaging - but there are degrees of damage. When names are attached to these accusations, we take them more seriously, and can't help but wonder what it was that they did to lead to the accusation. When accusations are made by someone whom was a presumed friend or allay, people can't help but take notice. These kinds of accusations can end someone's political career. They are as serious as can possibly be.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">And that's why I'm so damn angry. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>Something Has To Give</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Look, none of this is about me. Except, it is. I now find myself a member of a political party that I have long supported with my time, energy and resources. I continue to believe that this Party has the best set of policy options available to Canadians, especially with regards to an issue that is most important to me: climate change. I also continue to believe that members of the Green Party made a great choice in the recent leadership contest, as Annamie Paul was, in my opinion, the best nomination contestant on offer, and I had no reservations whatsoever of voting for her. I continue to believe that she is a dynamic individual of many talents who can lead this Party to significant success - unless her silence and inaction leads to the Party tearing itself apart first.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">How can I in good conscience remain connected to a Party wherein the Leader's proxies are encouraged (whether via silence or otherwise) to smear the reputations of good Greens like Atwin, Manly, Kate Storey, John Kidder, and Beverley Eert with unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism and/or racism? I don't recognize the Green Party anymore. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Something has to give. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><b>My Messages to the Leader and to Greens</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Annamie Paul: You can't remain silent on this any longer. You must assure Greens like me that MPs Jenica Atwin and Paul Manly continue to have a place in the Party's plans for future success. More specifically, you must let Greens know that you do not believe that Atwin and Manly are anti-Semites. And you must fire Noah Zaztman. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Greens: You must get ready for the unthinkable, because of the intolerable situation that the Leader has created with her silence and inaction. You know that it is inconceivable that the NDP hasn't already reached out to Atwin and Manly about crossing the floor. You must be prepared for the exit of these two MPs from the Party, should it come to that. And you must ask yourself what you will do should those events transpire.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I know what I will do. I will follow Atwin and Manly and exit the Party. And I will urge MP Elizabeth May to do the same thing, should it come to that. </span></p><p><br /></p>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-38338146338002505972021-05-19T12:20:00.002-04:002021-05-19T16:39:12.267-04:00Green MPs and NDP Leader Engaged in Anti-Semitism, Says Senior Advisor to Green Party Leader<p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)">I was very rattled upon my discovery that a Green Party "spokesperson" for Party leader Annamie Paul has himself recently spoken out against anti-Semitism in the Green Party, and has made the extraordinary claim that "political actors" across Canada, including NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, former Green Party leadership contestant Dimitri Lascaris, and "Green MPs" have engaged in acts of anti-Semitism and discrimination. You heard that right: a spokesperson for Annamie Paul, Leader of the Green Party, is accusing Green Party Members of Parliament of anti-Semitism.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-274aSltMduc/YKUu9-jBpHI/AAAAAAAABWQ/CGeODRcL-h0tRfsDIMWvkvByxYqwUt6mACLcBGAsYHQ/s682/Noah%2BZatzman-anti-Semitism-Green%2BMPs-2021-05-14.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="288" data-original-width="682" height="169" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-274aSltMduc/YKUu9-jBpHI/AAAAAAAABWQ/CGeODRcL-h0tRfsDIMWvkvByxYqwUt6mACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h169/Noah%2BZatzman-anti-Semitism-Green%2BMPs-2021-05-14.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Screencap of Statement from Noah Zatzman</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)"><br /></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)">This seriously ups the stakes with regards to recent turmoil within the Green Party related to accusations of racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny directed at the Leader of the Party by some members of the Party's Federal Council.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)">Noah Zatzman, a name many Greens will not be familiar with, was hired by Paul as a senior advisor, after serving as media consultant and strategist on her campaign team, according to iPolitics </span></span><span style="font-family: verdana;">(see: "</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-CA&q=https://ipolitics.ca/2020/11/12/hill-movers-green-party-leader-announces-new-team-bennett-macauley-changes/&source=gmail&ust=1621522637390000&usg=AFQjCNG7moEjoCcmtLB4FVJcJZrpQFUw2w" href="https://ipolitics.ca/2020/11/12/hill-movers-green-party-leader-announces-new-team-bennett-macauley-changes/" rel="nofollow" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; color: #1a73e8; font-family: verdana; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Hill Movers: Green Party leader announces new team; Bennett, MacAuley changes</a><span style="font-family: verdana;">," iPolitics, November 12, 2020). iPolitics also reports that prior to joining Paul's team, Zatzman worked as a senior advisor to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. Zatzman appears to continue to occupy his position in Paul's office - or at least was firmly ensconced there as of April 21st, when he, described as a "spokesman", offered the media comment on how Green MPs would be voting on the federal budget (see: "</span><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-CA&q=https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/three-confidence-votes-to-determine-fate-of-minority-liberal-government/&source=gmail&ust=1621522637390000&usg=AFQjCNE__RIegLlSDg4Ohy8BQZd2W76FgQ" href="https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/three-confidence-votes-to-determine-fate-of-minority-liberal-government/" rel="nofollow" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; color: #1a73e8; font-family: verdana; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Three confidence votes to determine fate of minority Liberal government</a><span style="font-family: verdana;">," Red Deer Advocate, April 21 2021).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Zatzman's accusations have been floating around social media for the past few days, having apparently been originally made on May 14, 2021 via Facebook. Interestingly, at that time, the Green Party had only released this rather anodyne statement about violence in Israel and Gaza, for which the Party and Paul received significant criticism from many who claimed that the statement did not go far enough to address the reality on the ground in the Occupied Territories, or in its representation of member-approved policy on Israel/Palestine (see: "<a href="https://www.greenparty.ca/en/statement/2021-05-10/green-party-statement-violence-israel-and-gaza">Green Party Statement on violence in Israel and Gaza</a>," May 10, 2021).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zrfxjXIsMGY/YKUqf5AuGMI/AAAAAAAABWA/h7tXmt-IoOE3GgWF2vk1ulEak_kTVja_gCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="941" data-original-width="1226" height="307" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zrfxjXIsMGY/YKUqf5AuGMI/AAAAAAAABWA/h7tXmt-IoOE3GgWF2vk1ulEak_kTVja_gCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h307/image.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Green Party of Canada Statement, May 10 2021.</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />Shortly after this statement was released by the Party, Green MP Jenica Atwin condemned it as "totally inadequate". Atwin, and Green MPs Paul Manly and Elizabeth May, each released their own, much more foreceful statements. On May 13th, Elizabeth May raised these matters in parliament, clearly placing the blame for current violence on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu's government and "extreme elements within settler groups" (see: "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPomDcjz__M" target="_blank">Elizabeth May: Canada must speak out clearly to defend the Palestinian people,</a>" Green Party of Canada YouTube Channel, May 13 2021).</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-awA_oTQGnEA/YKUsIhG69tI/AAAAAAAABWI/xPKpHRNRmFk47_s-Psk9goMNm-17Pg5ogCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="612" data-original-width="668" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-awA_oTQGnEA/YKUsIhG69tI/AAAAAAAABWI/xPKpHRNRmFk47_s-Psk9goMNm-17Pg5ogCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="262" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />Eventually, the Green Party released a more fulsome statement on the matter (see: "<a href="https://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2021-05-16/green-party-canada-reiterates-call-immediate-ceasefire-and-respect" target="_blank">Green Party of Canada reiterates call for immediate ceasefire and respect for international law</a>," Green Party of Canada, May 16 2021). While more forceful in its call for a ceasefire, it was nevertheless condemned by many who believe the Green Party has missed the fact that the goalposts around the issue have been moved by NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who has publicly called for an embargo on Canadian arms sales to Israel as a consequence of recent hostilities (see: "<a href="https://www.cjpme.org/pr_2021_05_17_bq_gpc_gaza">CJPME URGES BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS AND GREEN PARTY TO ENDORSE ARMS EMBARGO, EMERGENCY DEBATE ON ISRAEL</a>," CJPME, May 17 2021). </span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">In his post, Zatzman appears to suggest that his statement is based on his own personal experiences and observations. But as a Senior Advisor to the Leader of the Green Party who sometimes takes on the role as spokesperson, they will clearly carry more weight than words coming from most other individuals or even most other Party members. Zatzman is positioned at the top of the hierarchy here. He has the ear of the Leader, and it's his role to influence political choices.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Zatzman's comments also have to be viewed through the lens of recent turmoil within the Green Party that has spilled out on to the pages of the Toronto Star in a series of articles and columns revealing conflict between Federal Council and the Leader. The Star reports that these conflicts have been fueled by instances of racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny directed against Paul by some members of the Party's elected Federal Council. This has led to calls for the resignation of three Council members by former Green candidates, Mike Morrice and Anna Keenan (Morrice has since been nominated by his EDA to be the next Green candidate for Kitchener Centre) (see: "<a href="https://mikemorrice.ca/blog/our-call-for-renewal">An Open Letter: Our Call for Renewal within the Green Party of Canada’s Federal Council,</a>" April 29, 2021).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Recent episodes have shown that accusations like Zatzman's - even where there is no evidence offered in support of the claim - can and do seriously damage the reputations of individuals at whom the accusations are directed. Many Greens appear to be ready to accept accusations at face value. For a a political party that claims to be "evidence based" when it comes to policy, I find this very surprising - given that it totally ignores the political reality in which a lot of things appear to be playing out. That is not at all to suggest that the Green Party, like any modern institution or organization, does not have issues with systemic racism that it needs to address. But it is to suggest that there appears to me at least that a lot of what's going on has more to do with a serious political conflict within the Party than it does with anti-Semitism or racism directed at the leader.<br /></span><p></p><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">As someone who has always been concerned about anti-Semitism in the Green Party (and who documented anti-Semitic statements made about Paul in online forums during the leadership contest - see: "</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="http://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2020/10/anti-semitism-and-green-party-of.html" target="_blank">Anti-Semitism and the Green Party of Canada's Leadership Contest</a>," October 1 2020</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">), the suggestion that individuals within our Party are engaging in anti-Semitic and discriminatory behaviour is important to me. That said, I've been following a lot of online discussion in Green groups related to Israel/Palestine lately, along with statements made by various political actors like the Prime Minister, NDP Leader Singh and of course our own Green MPs. I believe I am coming from a place of some knowledge - albeit imperfect knowledge - when I share my own observation that I just haven't seen much in the way of anti-Semitic behaviour, and none at all from our elected caucus of 3 Green MPs. I've seen a lot of forceful statements made about the State of Israel's role and responsibility in the recent conflict. But I absolutely reject Zatzman's characterization of any statements made by Green MP's as being "anti-Semitic" or "discriminatory".</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Change my mind. Show me the proof.</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;" /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">So what really is going on here? Could it be that Zatzman does not realize that statements like his - based on personal observations and without evidence to support them - are going to leak out into the the broader world eventually, likely via the mainstream media? As a spokesperson for the Leader of the Green Party, it's not a leap to suggest that his personal views made in statements like this one are going to call into question whether they are shared by Annamie Paul. Some will go so far as to opine that, given his role as the Leader's spokesperson, it is unlikely that he would have made this statement without the Leader's input or direction. While it is not clear to me where this post originates (it does appear to be from Facebook), I am not willing to think at all that this is anything more than his personal expression - one not sanctioned by the Leader. But that's just me.</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Others will see this through a different political lens. Zatzman, who has made his career around media consultancy work, must know how this statement will be perceived. So if he knows how this will reflect on the Party and especially on Paul, why did he make it?</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;" /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Green Party needs to get out in front of this issue in a big way. At the very least, Zatzman needs to apologize to NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, former Green leadership contestant Dimitri Lascaris, and all three Green MP's - Jenica Atwin, Paul Manly and Elizabeth May - for tarnishing their reputation with unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism. </span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">And if he won't apologize, Paul needs to fire him right now, and make a clear statement that she does not support his reputationally-damaging views.</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;" /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Of course, should none of this happen - well - should none of this happen, I am seriously worried about what means for the Green Party, and where things could go. What else but to conclude that the conflict within the Party at the present time has taken a very serious turn by having a spokesperson for the leader state that elected Green MPs have engaged in anti-Semitism and discrimination. Things could go off the rails here very easily if Paul doesn't act. The Green Party runs the potential risk of having the entirety of its elected caucus walk away, if they feel that they are in the cross-hairs of a smear campaign coming from the Leader's office.</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Accusations of anti-Semitism should never be thrown around casually by anybody - especially when directed at named or known individuals, whose public reputations are always tarnished, even when there is no evidence to support the claims. Criticism of Israel and the actions of its government and those who act on behalf of its government are not acts of anti-Semitism, unless they devolve into attacks on individuals or an entire people based on race and religion alone. That happens sometimes. But I have not seen it happen with regards to the individuals identified by Zatzman.</span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;" /></span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">These unsubstantiated accusations coming from Zatzman are the last thing the Green Party needs right now. But at least the Party has a chance to get out in front of this one before it blows up in the media. I'm just shocked that this is happening at all, given Zatzman's position in the Leader's office, along with everything else that's been going on. It seems to me that the very people who ought to be the best positioned for looking out for political land mines are the ones that are laying them down in the first place. </span></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;"><br style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-66485146473008737782021-05-12T12:20:00.001-04:002021-05-12T12:20:00.253-04:00350 Canada: Partisan Greenwashing<p><br /></p><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">If there are still any Greens left out there who think that 350 Canada is a non-partisan organization that is striving for better climate outcomes in Canada (and for the planet), and not a mouthpiece of for the NDP, it's time for a major rethink.</span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="d37ft-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">350 Canada has long endorsed the NDP-branded "Green New Deal (for Canada)", rather than a more generic call for climate action. This kind of branding piggy-backing matters, because what you end up with are partisan New Democrats and (ostensibly) non-partisan 350 supporters talking up the same partisan-branded initiative.</span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="48vd1-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="48vd1-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="48vd1-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">In the 2019 election, 350 Canada supported a Squad of Green New Deal champions, and promoted these MP's heavily on their website. All were New Democrats. Of course, this approach overlooked the considerable national gravitas that the Green Party has brought to the climate change conversation when Elizabeth May was elected to parliament in 2011. Why wouldn't 350 Canada tell voters in Saanich Gulf Islands to back May - and Paul Manly, for that matter, who at that time was the newly-elected MP for Nanaimo-Ladysmith?</span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vJ2zgi8vE5E/YJvyoFSi7dI/AAAAAAAABVk/7COqZdbFQEYvZ8y-go9ydwPNqYoouiergCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="888" data-original-width="1238" height="230" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vJ2zgi8vE5E/YJvyoFSi7dI/AAAAAAAABVk/7COqZdbFQEYvZ8y-go9ydwPNqYoouiergCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From: 350 Canada website</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">350 Canada even gave their website a make-over, changing their brand's colours from predominately red to orange and sky blue. It's hard not to notice the orange now. This stuff matters, as it sends a message to people who engage via website.</span></span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="asspo-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XkplWcTIcnA/YJvy59RHe9I/AAAAAAAABVs/qIP1oO9giXAbNF3WP91gEkffpexRnBz2gCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="860" data-original-width="928" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XkplWcTIcnA/YJvy59RHe9I/AAAAAAAABVs/qIP1oO9giXAbNF3WP91gEkffpexRnBz2gCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="259" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From: 350 Canada website</td></tr></tbody></table><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Today, 350 Canada did something it has never (to my knowledge) done before: it has publicly called for solidarity with the people of Palestine, and is urging its followers to get involved in the global BDS movement. While this is probably good news for many Greens and supporters, I offer two observations. On the surface, this seems out-of-step with 350 Canada's mission of "ending the fossil fuel era and building a green economy". But, recent events appear to have led 350 Canada to speak out about what's going on in Israel/Palestine - and no, I'm not talking about the terrible images we're all seeing via social media, but rather the NDP Policy Convention's approval of motions that now endorse sanctions and an arms embargo of Israel.</span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="8i1qu-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="8i1qu-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="8i1qu-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4eyQKjn5xQY/YJvzL8pdlTI/AAAAAAAABV0/292qCKQIbmc2DaEjJeK_BDQoa-emSWohACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="928" data-original-width="542" height="320" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4eyQKjn5xQY/YJvzL8pdlTI/AAAAAAAABV0/292qCKQIbmc2DaEjJeK_BDQoa-emSWohACLcBGAsYHQ/w187-h320/image.png" width="187" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">350 Canada on Twitter</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">350 Canada could have been vocal about boycott, divestment and sanctions at any time in its history - but doing so would have aligned it with the Green Party as per our 2016 policy - and not the NDP. But now a little over a month after the NDP has caught up to the Green Party on this issue, you've got 350 Canada going public. Coincidence? Maybe. But I don't think so.</span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="3u9g3-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="3u9g3-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="3u9g3-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="pko-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="pko-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="pko-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Greens need to stay away from 350 Canada. They are working against our interests and the interests of the planet by playing a hidden partisan game with voters. They are not being honest with Canadians, and are now clearly working in opposition to what they claim to want in terms of climate action, by giving the NDP covert support. Instead of engaging in partisan greenwashing, they ought to be telling their supporters to do what would really work: Vote Green.</span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="238p2-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="238p2-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="238p2-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="7353j" data-offset-key="6ebp5-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6ebp5-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><span class="py34i1dx" style="color: var(--blue-link); font-family: inherit;">https://twitter.com/350Canada/status/1392483898727206914</span></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-88829882366515787202021-04-21T12:15:00.001-04:002021-04-21T12:15:00.258-04:00It's Increasingly Looking Like the Green Party of Ontario Needs to Start Talking About New Leadership<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Here are the latest polling results from Abacus regarding voter intentions in Ontario. As with other polls from earlier this week, it's not a surprise to see PC support starting to slip - and I think it's fair to say that we'll continue to see slippage going into next week, given the absolute disastrous performance of Ford's government just since Friday at 4:00 PM.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8XzJ1KkDc4E/YIA76kVsouI/AAAAAAAABVU/6W4gR5EFw2ATSGtiy9OXQtilGry1jHyqgCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="879" data-original-width="1551" height="362" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8XzJ1KkDc4E/YIA76kVsouI/AAAAAAAABVU/6W4gR5EFw2ATSGtiy9OXQtilGry1jHyqgCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h362/image.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From: Abacus Data - April 21, 2021</td></tr></tbody></table><br /></span><br /></span></p><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="e8do0-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="e8do0-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But there's another story developing here that I think needs to be examined by Green Party supporters - and that's the complete stagnation of the Green Party of Ontario. The GPO received a little less than 5% of the popular vote in 2018. Most polls are showing Greens somewhere between 5% and 10% - but you've got to keep in mind, Green Parties throughout Canada always over-perform in the polls and under-perform at the ballot box. So when you see 10%, take it with a grain of salt, as our supporters just don't show up at the ballot box.</span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="e8do0-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="e8do0-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Green Party hasn't been the only party to experience flat-lined support since the 2018 provincial election. There has been very little movement among any of the parties - up until now. This is the time that we should start to see the Green Party moving up in polling numbers, if it's message was resonating even a little bit with voters. But, so far, nothing.</span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="dcp64-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dcp64-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="dcp64-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="e8feq-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="e8feq-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="e8feq-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">If Greens can't figure out a way to capitalize on this moment, I don't think they can avoid the conversation for much longer - not if Greens want to elect enough MPP's in 2022 to be recognized as an Official Party at Queen's Park. If what they're doing and saying are good things - but they are still not resonating with the voting public - I think it's time that we conclude that new leadership is probably warranted. </span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="m0st-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="m0st-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="m0st-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="8638t-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="8638t-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="8638t-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I'm a big supporter of Green Party of Ontario leader Mike Schreiner. I think he's done a very good job putting the Green Party on the map and keeping it as relevant as can be throughout these difficult times, when the pandemic has really sidelined many non-government elected officials (Andrea Horwath has almost completely disappeared from the public eye). But it may be Mike has taken the Green Party as far as he can, and if the Party is going to have any hope of growing, it will need to be under new leadership.</span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="6mbk8-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6mbk8-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="6mbk8-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="ajaqp-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="ajaqp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="ajaqp-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I hope I'm wrong about this - I really do hope to see Green numbers start to rise in the polls over the next couple of weeks, coincident with the governing party's loss of popularity. But if we don't - it remains in the realm of possibility that the Green Party can put itself back on track with new leadership in place before the June 2022 election.</span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="k5fo-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="k5fo-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="k5fo-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="4v6sa" data-offset-key="59jn8-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="59jn8-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="59jn8-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">It's a conversation Greens need to start having.</span></span></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-46139980972925779492021-04-15T12:03:00.006-04:002021-04-15T13:08:47.803-04:00Will Erin O'Toole Survive Impending Conservative Backlash to His Big Business-Friendly Carbon Scheme?<p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Re: "<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-conservatives-1.5988407" target="_blank">Conservatives' climate plan would replace Liberal carbon tax with lower levy of their own</a>," CBC, April 15, 2021.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I don't agree with the characterization of this scheme as being a "carbon tax" - it seems to be a different form of Carbon Fee & Dividend to me (and the Supreme Court tells me and others that Carbon Fee & Dividend is not a tax, so....)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s_lhnI_mg7M/YHhy2yAQdlI/AAAAAAAABVA/FJd5HWNGtR855wPRULD0oBN-vdExzRDYQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="425" data-original-width="425" height="400" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s_lhnI_mg7M/YHhy2yAQdlI/AAAAAAAABVA/FJd5HWNGtR855wPRULD0oBN-vdExzRDYQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h400/image.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole (Facebook)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">There is some small merit to this approach, once you look past the reduction in the carbon fee and the crony capitalism of working with big business and how this will punish local businesses (once again) in preference to multinationals like WalMart, etc. Arguably, requiring the dividend to be spent on low-carbon purchases only will create greater efficiency - so you get more carbon reduction bang for your buck.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">But it's hard to overlook all of the rest.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Not to worry, though - his own Party is going to eat him alive over this. Caucus, candidates, Party members and supporters, along with Conservative media pundits will almost certainly characterize this as a "Carbon Tax" - and as a (yet another) betrayal of so-called "Conservative Values" by O'Toole. This platform plank won't see the light of day come election time (which is why the trial balloon is up now). It just won't survive the backlash.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">My question is, can O'Toole survive as leader of his own Party?</span></p>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-4701027393482820302021-04-08T08:28:00.001-04:002021-04-08T11:33:57.754-04:00Elected Right-Wing Extremists Challenge Public Health Measures in Alberta<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">An interesting dynamic is at play in Alberta - one that I hope we don't see here in Ontario (and don't expect that we will). Despite the endless scandals and incredible mis-steps, until now Premier Jason Kenney has ruled over his United Conservative Party with an iron fist. But after finally implementing public health measures commensurate with the requirements of getting out in front of the COVID-19 pandemic, a quarter of his caucus (16 MLA's) are now in open rebellion against his government, claiming the measures are too strict and demanding they be reversed, perhaps on a regional basis. <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v0jbd-x9zKs/YG8ho0HfRpI/AAAAAAAABUw/YjVMJiBqQD47phUf8iDb1CIe_kJvlWK6ACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="563" height="296" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v0jbd-x9zKs/YG8ho0HfRpI/AAAAAAAABUw/YjVMJiBqQD47phUf8iDb1CIe_kJvlWK6ACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h296/image.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jason Kenney. Source: Calgary Herald<br /></td></tr></tbody></table></span></span></p><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Here in Ontario, Premier Ford quickly (like within the hour quickly) threw out a member of his team (MPP Roman Baber) at the first sign of questioning Ford's public health decisions. Kenney isn't likely to take this step, as he is aware that his United Conservative Party is a coalition between traditional Conservatives (like himself) and Alberta's own brand of right-wing extremists in the form of former Wild Rose Party (a.k.a. "Lake of Fire") MLA's, who seem to treat the existence of science, evidence and fact with contempt and disdain. </span></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Now, all of the 16 MLA's that signed the open letter against Kenney are backbenchers, at least one was a member of Kenney's government up until she was caught and publicly exposed and derided for taking a vacation outside the country this past Christmastime. So it's not as if there aren't some "mainstream" (for Alberta) people involved here. And now that the forces that be have decided to take action against the anti-masker's symbolic Grace United Church (which keeps holding services despite public health measures that ought to have seen it shut down a long time ago), this rebellion could grow.</span></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">I fully expect Kenney to start caving in to the demands of the Profit over People crowd in his own caucus - maybe by developing some sort of regional framework similar to the one we tried here in Ontario for awhile that we proved DOES NOT WORK. Woe be to Albertans caught up in this right-wing political in-fighting - many of whom are putting their lives on the line just going to work or sending their kids to school.</span></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">Say what you want about the Ontario government's handling of the pandemic (and there is *a lot* that can and should be said), but at least they're not beholden to the king of right-wing extremists within their own caucus that Alberta has to deal with. That people with such extreme and marginal views can find themselves in positions of power is disconcerting to say the least. But our first-past-the-post electoral system that promotes a kind of tribalism at the ballot box is clearly responsible. All the extremists have to do in many ridings is win a nomination contest - as their Party's endorsement almost assures that they'll be elected, no questions asked. And that's another reason all levels of government need to start taking a look at proportional representation - to keep the extremists out.</span></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;">So, Sudbury, we might find ourselves in the midst of a pretty lousy time right now - but it could be a lot worse.</span></div><div dir="auto" style="color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: verdana; font-size: medium; white-space: pre-wrap;">See: "</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: verdana; font-size: medium;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/braid-nearly-one-quarter-of-kenneys-caucus-revolts-against-latest-pandemic-measures" target="_blank">Braid: One-quarter of Kenney's caucus revolts against latest pandemic measures</a>," Calgary Herald, April 7 2021.</span></span></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-85182788285258638052021-03-08T18:20:00.002-05:002021-03-08T20:04:02.536-05:00ONDP's "Green New Democratic Deal" - Cap and Trade - A Bad Idea Made Worse<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>"Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again</i>." -From Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire"</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There are a lot of good ideas in the Ontario NDP's recently released "Green New Democratic Deal". With a few exceptions, the NDP has checked just about every box that a political party should be checking if they are interested in developing a credible climate change plan. With my quick 20-minute review, I only noticed two glaring omissions: there are no calls to extend more protections to wetlands or to the habitat of species at risk. Not sure why the ONDP left those things out, as they have in the past been champions for protecting wetlands (species at risk is a bit of a different matter).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The "Plan" sure is light on details. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The centrepiece of the Plan is a new Cap and Trade scheme that will replace the federal backstop. Yes, Cap and Trade is back again - and about as welcome to me as Richard Nixon putting in another appearance.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But at least it appears that the NDP will take some time to work out the details after it gets elected, leaving voters to wonder just what they're in store for when they head to the polls. The "plan" indicates that there will be a good deal of consultation with stakeholders before it ever gets set up. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And that's very disconcerting, considering that three quarters of the $40 billion that the NDP wants to spend will be coming directly from the proceeds of Cap and Trade. </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">$30 billion in new revenue is projected to come from Cap and Trade scheme, and $10 billion from Green bonds. Is that realistic?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">At the time of cancellation of the Liberal's Cap and Trade program in 2018, projections were that the province would be foregoing $3 billion in revenue over 4 years (see: "<a href="https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2018/10/16/premier-doug-fords-cap-and-trade-move-will-cost-treasury-3b-over-four-years.html" target="_blank">Premier Doug Ford’s cap-and-trade move will cost treasury $3B over four years</a>," the Toronto Star, October 16, 2018)</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">. Now, the vagaries of any cap and trade program are such that it's hard to know, exactly, how much revenue a program is going to pull in until the cap is set and the auction begins. But let's assume the numbers reported in 2018 are correct: the former program would have generated $3 billion in revenue for Ontario.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But the NDP says their program will generate $30 billion over 4 years - 10 times as much. Which suggests that the cap put on emissions is going to be much tighter, leading to a much higher per-tonne cost for carbon pollution.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Of course, the NDP's plan doesn't say what per tonne cost they're aiming for (all of this will be left for some sort of commission to discuss). But let's say it's 10 times the amount that was being charged under the Liberal scheme, just to stick with the 10 times increment (and I know, that's a big assumption, because it might not need to be that high - or even at 10 times the cost, it still might not generate that level of revenue, it might need to go even higher). The Liberals were getting about $17 per tonne of emissions. Which means the NDP would be looking at $170 per tonne.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">$170 per tonne just happens to be what the federal carbon price backstop will rise to in 2030. $170 per tonne still might not be high enough to capture the real costs of pollution, but it's nothing to sneeze at either.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So that's pretty good, right? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Wrong.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">It's a good price. But the NDP also says that they don't want "the little guy" to get hurt via carbon pricing. And that's where everything in the Cap and Trade Ponzi Scheme completely breaks down. At $170 per tonne, you can bet that the additional costs endured by industry will be passed on to consumers. We just won't see it happening transparently (another big issue with Cap and Trade). But we're all going to get hit by those costs.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Under the federal backstop, we'd get hit by the costs, but most of us would come out ahead, thanks to the dividend that's rebated to consumers through income tax deductions.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In the NDP's new Ontario, we're all going to take a bath thanks to higher production costs that will be passed on - but there's nothing there for consumers (or very little - sure, there'll be some programs we can apply to for some stuff - but every day people - especially the most vulnerable, including those who rent are going to be hurt most of all).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Honestly, I don't think the NDP actually contemplate seeing their per tonne carbon price rise to $170 a tonne. And I don't believe that there's any way that a lower carbon price is going to drag in the $30 billion in revenue that the NDP is banking on. Their numbers (and there aren't many of them in the plan) don't appear to be realistic. In fact, they appear to be completely unrealistic - at least on this critical issue of "where is the funding going to come from?"</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cC75Ti8RRkE/YEavZTwUhRI/AAAAAAAABUQ/YI7W8_KckZAjbVEo0dp5buIwJGf85CzgQCLcBGAsYHQ/s700/Robinson-What%2BGlen%2BMight%2BBe%2BSaying%2BIf%2BHe%2BUnderstood-Carbon%2BTax%2Bgraphic.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><img border="0" data-original-height="504" data-original-width="700" height="288" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cC75Ti8RRkE/YEavZTwUhRI/AAAAAAAABUQ/YI7W8_KckZAjbVEo0dp5buIwJGf85CzgQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h288/Robinson-What%2BGlen%2BMight%2BBe%2BSaying%2BIf%2BHe%2BUnderstood-Carbon%2BTax%2Bgraphic.png" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">From Dr. David Robinson, Associate Professor of Economics, Laurentian University</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Remember: the only way to achieve a reasonably high carbon price without leading to rioting in the streets is to give revenues back to consumers - just as the federal Liberals are now. The ONDP's Cap and Trade scheme won't do that - so it will either fail because it will have a negligible impact on reducing pollution because the per tonne price is too low (as they've discovered in California; after years of working under Cap and Trade, emissions have actually risen), or it will work to make goods and services too expensive for consumers.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But again, I don't really believe the NDP has costed their plan. I don't think they've really given much thought to any of this. I think they made a political decision to go with Cap and Trade, because the Liberals are likely to go with a carbon tax (or to keep the federal backstop in place - because it's working, and will be working even better as the per tonne carbon cost rises). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So, Ontario NDP, prove me wrong. Show us all your math. Because right now your "Green" New Democratic Deal looks like it's covered in fudge.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-27151014702314122152021-03-03T08:08:00.003-05:002021-03-03T10:38:03.932-05:00Greens Need to be Realistic About Upcoming Federal Election - and Beyond<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I realize CBC's Eric Grenier is focused on the NDP in this piece - but behind the words we see some serious issues for the Green Party of Canada (see: "</span></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ndp-rise-1.5933907">Singh's NDP could gain a little — and lose a lot — in a spring election</a>," CBC, March 3 2021)</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: verdana; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">. While the polls have been mostly stagnate over the past year and a bit, the NDP did see a bit of a drop, and now appear to have regained most of what they lost and are back to numbers that they saw in the 2019 election - 19%, with some polls putting them a little ahead. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: verdana; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CxmbV_-6uz0/YD-nOuVwJmI/AAAAAAAABUA/EDW57Kh8juIVO70u7DVO4QHBmnhFoUQNQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="455" data-original-width="711" height="205" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CxmbV_-6uz0/YD-nOuVwJmI/AAAAAAAABUA/EDW57Kh8juIVO70u7DVO4QHBmnhFoUQNQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="163r5-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="163r5-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="163r5-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Green Party continues to poll a little better than our 2019 record (5-6% in polls right now; but we were at around 8% pre-eday 2019 vs. 6.5% actual in 2019), but Greens need to keep in mind this rule of thumb with the polls: Greens always poll higher than our vote share. Always. So when I see 5%, I think 3%.</span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="9fmhu-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9fmhu-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="9fmhu-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="1rtqc-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1rtqc-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="1rtqc-0-0"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1rtqc-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="1rtqc-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Given that the coming election is going to be fought on the basis of Trudeau, COVID and the economy - not exactly in our Party's sweet spot - and given that our Party leaders seem keen to want to go head-to-head with the NDP, the latest polls that show that same NDP on the rise - with our party mired in 5th place - maybe it's time for this sobering reality to start having an impact on our electoral strategy. </span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="ak9e1-0-0"></div></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="funrb-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="funrb-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="funrb-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">I'm not saying that we should think about pressing the 'panic button' (not sure what we could do at this point to change things around), but I am suggesting that maybe this election is one where we should focus on keeping our powder dry. Let's introduce our leader to the country, try to get our current MP's elected, and maybe add two or three more, somewhere, somehow. And let the chips fall where they may. If that means the NDP pick up a few seats, so be it. </span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="5dmdi-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5dmdi-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="5dmdi-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="9nldi-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9nldi-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="9nldi-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">But it also means that whatever the electoral outcome, our Party needs to stick with our current leader. That's the bargain we've got to make in an election where holding on to what we've got is the measure of success.</span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="vuud-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="vuud-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="vuud-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="dakd3-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="dakd3-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="dakd3-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">I look around the internet and I know that the knives are out for Annamie Paul. Her critics within the party and on its fringes are tearing her down. After some initial media successes, she's largely disappeared - and when she does pop up (as she did recently with the Olympics), she's hardly motivating the base (and indeed, she's turning some off - and giving ammunition to her opponents). She's been good on LTC, and if that helps her win in Toronto Centre, that alone would be awesome. But it's an issue which the NDP will always be perceived to be better than us on - which makes it a loser issue for Greens.</span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="aqi26-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="aqi26-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="aqi26-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="bbmsn-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bbmsn-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="bbmsn-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">If you don't believe me, that's fine. I'm just some guy shouting from the wilderness. But look no further than what the other former leadership candidates will be up to in the next election. Howard, Kuttner and Murray have publicly said they'll be sitting it out. Rumours are out there that Merner might not run again. Lascaris? I'm not fan of his, but I know he's a smart guy - there's not much benefit to him right now if he has leadership ambitions to run somewhere and lose. West will probably run, because that's what West does. Haddad? Is she even still a Green? </span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="ah56e-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="ah56e-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="ah56e-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="5e3r0-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5e3r0-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="5e3r0-0-0"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Trouble is on our horizon. Let's hope that the campaign team understands this and decides to be realistic with its expectations. So far, I haven't seen a lot of that realism emerge, given the desire to compete with the NDP and the selection of Toronto Centre as the riding for Paul to run in. But I do hope they're getting the message that this is an important election for us - and getting wiped out across the country will not help further the Green Party or our movement.</span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="egq68" data-offset-key="m4dp-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="m4dp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;"><br /></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-80435361376261478282021-02-17T07:44:00.001-05:002021-02-17T10:48:05.376-05:00Maybe it's Time to Cancel Chris Hedges<div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I think maybe it's time to "cancel" Chris Hedges. Not because of racism or bigotry - but because he clearly has nothing to contribute to on-going discussions about the shifting attitudes towards BIPOC - and the political realities confronted by people of colour in their daily lives. Buying into the right-wing idea that "cancel culture" is a thing is a bad enough. Conflating it with the silencing of voices from the past whom lacked the power and political protection of the white majority - that's just egregious.</span></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Hedges is setting up a false equivalency, seemingly largely based on the realities of the U.S. civil rights movement of 50-60 years ago. Yes, capitalism is a huge issue and we've got to do something about that. But enabling racism because some whites involved are disenfranchised by an oppressive economic elite IS NOT the answer.</span></div></div><div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Racism, in all of its forms (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia) - and misogyny, anti-LGBTQIA2S+ - must be confronted and called out at every instance. Hedges is here actually preaching a kind of toleration in the name of finding allies for a larger project - tearing down capitalism. Maybe that's a worthy cause - but allying with the haters because of a larger common interest just isn't on. And frankly, it's not very likely that many allies are going to be found in that quarter anyway, given the serious embrace of capitalism of the political right - and probably more profoundly, their complete contempt for the left and the kind of socialism Hedges probably wants to use as a sword against capitalism.</span></div></div><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tolerance for the intolerant is the liberal recipe for continued inaction and failure. It may sound good and all to find common ground and to work with political foes - I'm all in favour of that - but if those "foes" are actually more than just political opponents and actually represent a clear and present danger to the well-being of individuals through their policies that seek to restrict the rights of women and BIPOC (not to mention outright hatred), they have zero place in civil discourse. If that means they're "canceled" so be it. We're not talking about canceling conservatives here - just bigots and haters.</span> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">See: "<a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/chris-hedges-cancel-culture-where-liberalism-goes-to-die/275373/?fbclid=IwAR24xRpz2H35kbGkX9YUH1SD5Gx8pEZRai1ohJ83G1uXg2VaBoA1h0NjK4s" target="_blank">Cancel Culture: Where Liberalism Goes to Die</a>," Chris Hedges, mintpressnews.com, February 15, 2021.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-62144768294937227872020-12-23T16:16:00.005-05:002021-02-02T21:28:13.357-05:00Statement on the LPAT Decision to Dismiss the Appeals Related to Planning Act Decisions for the Kingsway Entertainment District<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Obviously, I am very disappointed with the decision. I believe that the appellants raised serious and significant issues related to public policy as expressed by the unwavering direction that the City had appeared committed to with regards to putting a new arena in the downtown. As we know, after years of building public expectation that a new arena would be located in the downtown, through the production of reports and plans like the Downtown Sudbury Master Plan, and “From the Ground Up”, the city’s economic development plan, one vote by Council on the night of June 27, 2017 upended public expectations. Significant public consultation had gone into informing the development of the plans that called for a downtown arena, but Council’s decision back in 2017 ignored those plans in favour of a new direction informed by interests different from those previously expressed by the public.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The ability of the appellants to present a fulsome case in this matter were restricted by the courts, which made a decision in Toronto that impacted the scope of our hearing in Greater Sudbury. The Toronto Rail Deck decision turned the new Bill 139 LPAT process into one that heavily favoured municipalities over public citizens like myself and the other appellants. Eventually, the LPAT’s flawed hearing process was altered, but not in time to prevent our hearing from going forward under the flawed rules. Had the appeals been filed prior to or after the Bill 139 process being in place, I believe today’s outcome would have been significantly different.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: verdana;">That said, Greater Sudburians should have every confidence that the city, the intervening parties, the appellants and the LPAT all engaged in the spirit of resolving the appeals expeditiously and professionally. As an unrepresented party, I was given every opportunity to fully participate in the hearing. Although the legislative process for the hearing, and the hearing’s outcome were disappointing for me, I have nothing but respect for my fellow appellants, municipal staff and the legal teams that engaged in this matter before the Tribunal, and for the Tribunal itself.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Although the city now has the ability to move forward with this project, I have to echo the concerns and cautions expressed by so many other taxpaying citizens in my community. COVID-19 has changed everything. A decision back in 2017 to pursue a new entertainment district in an industrial area on the urban fringe may no longer make sense in light of today's fiscal realities. The long-term sustainability and and health of the community now more than ever needs to take centre stage at this time of uncertainty.</span></span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">I’ll be reviewing the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal’s decision over the holidays to see whether there are any concerns that merit further action.</span></span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18.4px;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Steve May</span></span></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-26838240986063534242020-10-01T23:49:00.004-04:002020-10-02T01:09:43.588-04:00Anti-Semitism and the Green Party of Canada's Leadership Contest<p><i> </i><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>"I have been subjected to months of antisemitic attacks. The moment it became known that I was Jewish, I was bombarded with questions about my positions on Israel, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, and the proposed annexation of West Bank territories.</i>" </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">--Annamie Paul, Green Party of Canada Leadership Contestant, July 27 2020 (from: "<a href="https://canadianjewishrecord.ca/2020/07/27/you-can-respond-to-hate-with-hate-or-convert-it-to-a-teaching-moment-we-chose-the-latter/">You Can Respond to Hate with Hate or Convert it to a Teaching Moment. We Chose the Latter.</a>" Canadian Jewish Record)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3AhWlGZVDn8/X3Saw59eh8I/AAAAAAAABPs/NTQwegPLWiUS6vLRKxxeKj0Lvi2Xk_B2ACLcBGAsYHQ/s710/Annamie%2BPaul-name%2Bcalling%2Bduring%2Bdebate-2020-07-21.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="475" height="434" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3AhWlGZVDn8/X3Saw59eh8I/AAAAAAAABPs/NTQwegPLWiUS6vLRKxxeKj0Lvi2Xk_B2ACLcBGAsYHQ/w290-h434/Annamie%2BPaul-name%2Bcalling%2Bduring%2Bdebate-2020-07-21.jpg" width="290" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Response from Paul after Zoom Meeting<br />interrupted by racist and anti-Semitic posts<br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">When the only Jewish leadership contestant in a field of eight candidates says she's experienced prejudice that directly targets her Jewish identity, everyone should be listening. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">When the anti-Semitic attacks are coming from members of her own Party, that's egregious. When that Party is the Green Party of Canada, it's downright unfathomable. And yet, here we are.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I'm pretty sure that Annamie Paul would rather be discussing issues like the climate emergency and human rights, or how to build stronger Green electoral district associations across the nation. But so much of her limited oxygen that any leadership contestant gets to expel during a leadership contestant has been taken up dealing with anti-Semitic remarks, claims and false accusations - made by Green Party members or supporters - because of Paul's religious faith.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And that's just not right.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Paul herself has been sounding the alarm bells for months, but it seems to me that she has been a lone voice in the wilderness. Even though the instances of anti-Semitic attacks on Paul have been well-documented. Th</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">e Green Party of Canada itself has taken no actions to address anti-Semitism. And indeed, by ignoring it, the Party has gone out of its way to facilitate anti-Semitism.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And that's just unacceptable.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Look, I get it. Very few of these anti-Semitic statements are being made in places that the Party has any control over. The Party might have its own sites on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., but that's not where the conversations around the leadership campaigns are taking place. Those aren't the spaces that some Greens feel comfortable engaging in anti-Semitic speech.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AklHQNJb6Gc/X3SazdSJhLI/AAAAAAAABQ8/31PLmTn6sh0GFoBM4V8diWm_yD55q955gCLcBGAsYHQ/s960/Meryam%2BHaddad-hate%2Bpost%2Bfrom%2BSk%2Bdebate-2020-07-21.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="828" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AklHQNJb6Gc/X3SazdSJhLI/AAAAAAAABQ8/31PLmTn6sh0GFoBM4V8diWm_yD55q955gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Meryam%2BHaddad-hate%2Bpost%2Bfrom%2BSk%2Bdebate-2020-07-21.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Racist and anti-Semitic posts made at <br />all-candidates Zoom meeting<br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If you don't have control of the space, you can't control what goes on there, right? To a d</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">egree that may be true - but the Green Party does have a tool at its disposal that it should be using to ensure that Green Party members abide by a higher standard - one the Members themselves agree to when they pay their fee and sign their membership card. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">It's the Members Code of Conduct. And it applies to members where ever we may go - including those dark places on the internet nominally set aside for Green Party members and supporters, but which have really turned into an echo chamber for promoting a single leadership contestant. And it's a place where Greens feel free to express anti-Semitic tropes openly - mostly directed at the Party's only Jewish leadership contestant. They know that little action will be taken by group moderators who should be creating a safe space for Greens to have conversations and dialogue, because the moderators themselves appear to see little problem with the use of anti-Semitic tropes.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And why should the moderators of Facebook groups like Green Party of Canada Supporters be held to a standard that the Party doesn't want to seem to uphold either? Evidence of these attacks has been there for anyone who might have bothered to go and look for it. The following screencaps were all taken from the Green Party of Canada Supporters Facebook group over the span of about 4 weeks. I was a member of that group, who engaged periodically. I was eventually removed from the group by moderators because I was calling out anti-Semitic posts like these too often. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">They would rather sweep anti-Semitism under the rug. It's easier to deal with their. And in that, they are little different from the Green Party of Canada itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Special Requirements for Jewish Politicians</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">When Jewish people are singled out for "special treatment" because the are Jewish, that's anti-Semitic. When non-Jewish people are calling for Jews to be subject of special requirements - even when those Jews are democratically elected officials - that's egregious.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6Nz50ioO9O8/X3SaxuvicXI/AAAAAAAABQY/gLEKpvvzWi86Z1bPRHScupUGpuhk-yzyQCLcBGAsYHQ/s432/GP-Jewish%2Bpoliticians%2Bidentify%2Bas%2BJewish-2020-07-12.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="115" data-original-width="432" height="124" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6Nz50ioO9O8/X3SaxuvicXI/AAAAAAAABQY/gLEKpvvzWi86Z1bPRHScupUGpuhk-yzyQCLcBGAsYHQ/w469-h124/GP-Jewish%2Bpoliticians%2Bidentify%2Bas%2BJewish-2020-07-12.jpg" width="469" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Look, I get it - colonialism sucks. That's an opinion that I suspect I share with most Green Party members and supporters. But it's not a universally-held opinion. Calling for all Jewish politicians to condemn colonialism - rather than calling for everyone to condemn it - is anti-Semitic.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--ksO_zNYen8/X3Sax6abYiI/AAAAAAAABQg/D3GdgmL6mhsKI2LTj0y0PRYpEtydaHGcgCLcBGAsYHQ/s519/GP-Paul%2Bis%2Btoo%2BJewish-2020-08-14.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="519" height="422" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--ksO_zNYen8/X3Sax6abYiI/AAAAAAAABQg/D3GdgmL6mhsKI2LTj0y0PRYpEtydaHGcgCLcBGAsYHQ/w452-h422/GP-Paul%2Bis%2Btoo%2BJewish-2020-08-14.jpg" width="452" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">As I indicated earlier, I suspect that Annamie Paul would rather be talking about the issues over the course of the leadership campaign. That she has had to talk about what it is like to be Jewish during this campaign has come about largely because of anti-Semitic attacks like this. Keep in mind - Paul can no more deny or repress her faith than she can her gender or her skin colour or her educational experiences. Her faith is a part of her identity. Wanting to silence her for having a faith identity that is Jewish is anti-Semitic.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Dual Loyalty</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Accusing Jews of having divided loyalties - therefore rendering them untrustworthy - can be anti-Semitic. The "dual loyalty" trope - when used to attack Jewish elected officials or those seeking public office, is anti-Semitic.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mgZrOT3aMa4/X3Saw4xvQEI/AAAAAAAABP0/h2Z5XHI3gu4B48XgbjUJ9NNtIC0BZQpRwCLcBGAsYHQ/s867/CH-Annamie%2Bat%2Brisk%2Bof%2Bbribery%2Bbecause%2Bshe%2Bis%2BJewish-2020-07-13.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="867" data-original-width="431" height="898" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mgZrOT3aMa4/X3Saw4xvQEI/AAAAAAAABP0/h2Z5XHI3gu4B48XgbjUJ9NNtIC0BZQpRwCLcBGAsYHQ/w446-h898/CH-Annamie%2Bat%2Brisk%2Bof%2Bbribery%2Bbecause%2Bshe%2Bis%2BJewish-2020-07-13.jpg" width="446" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The dual loyalty trope remains anti-Semitic even in circumstances where someone uses it points out that Israel gives free land to Jews, and therefore....divided loyalties. It's almost as if to say that a Jewish Member of Parliament can never be completely loyal to Canada, because they might receive a benefit from Israel at some point in their lives, so....don't trust them, they've got a "conflict of interest" or divided loyalties!</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6HwF1Mo-QWc/X3Saw4WLkmI/AAAAAAAABPo/bTIPfKgGxGA5lYmhow4fPMHPQHKyt8hzACLcBGAsYHQ/s707/CH-Foreign%2BAgents%2Btaking%2Bover%2Bthe%2BGreen%2BParty-2020-07-04.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="501" height="615" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6HwF1Mo-QWc/X3Saw4WLkmI/AAAAAAAABPo/bTIPfKgGxGA5lYmhow4fPMHPQHKyt8hzACLcBGAsYHQ/w436-h615/CH-Foreign%2BAgents%2Btaking%2Bover%2Bthe%2BGreen%2BParty-2020-07-04.jpg" width="436" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Annamie Paul, although Jewish, is not an Agent of the State of Israel. She is only being accused of being a "foreign government agent" or "shill with citizenship" in another country because she is Jewish. Here, the potential right to citizenship in the state of Israel is conflated with actually having citizenship.</span> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RAiJoaTblxY/X3SaxPxZwKI/AAAAAAAABPw/mpIsfJVQwr8oOXIbp53pAXOcJdJDg6wXwCLcBGAsYHQ/s519/CH-Jews%2Bnot%2Ballowed%2Bto%2Bparticipate%2Bin%2Bdemocracy%2Bbecause%2Bcitizenship-2020-07-14.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="474" height="460" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RAiJoaTblxY/X3SaxPxZwKI/AAAAAAAABPw/mpIsfJVQwr8oOXIbp53pAXOcJdJDg6wXwCLcBGAsYHQ/w420-h460/CH-Jews%2Bnot%2Ballowed%2Bto%2Bparticipate%2Bin%2Bdemocracy%2Bbecause%2Bcitizenship-2020-07-14.jpg" width="420" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">"Jewish people do not necessarily have Israeli citizenship" also means that Jewish people do not necessarily <i>not</i> have Israeli citizenship. Language like this casts the spectre of doubt of Jewish people's national loyalties, because you never know whether they are citizens of <i>some other</i> foreign country or not.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Debating whether it is fair or not to bar Jewish people from politics is <i>always</i> anti-Semitic.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Calling for Jewish elected officials to recuse themselves from political discussion on matters pertaining to Jews or the state of Israel is <i>always</i> anti-Semitic.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O6cAAXpu-F0/X3SaxXEhmMI/AAAAAAAABP4/y3jgVOElJ3QcNTe878aHj2mNQiORiDG1QCLcBGAsYHQ/s426/CH-Paul%2BConflict%2Bof%2BInterest%2Bon%2BBDS%2Bbecause%2Bshe%2Bis%2BJewish-2020-07-14.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="138" data-original-width="426" height="136" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O6cAAXpu-F0/X3SaxXEhmMI/AAAAAAAABP4/y3jgVOElJ3QcNTe878aHj2mNQiORiDG1QCLcBGAsYHQ/w419-h136/CH-Paul%2BConflict%2Bof%2BInterest%2Bon%2BBDS%2Bbecause%2Bshe%2Bis%2BJewish-2020-07-14.jpg" width="419" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">"I want all persons with [the right to return] to recuse from BDS debate" is a call for Jewish politicians not to take part in political discussions because they are Jewish. That's anti-Semitic. And the author of this piece is in no position to demand Jews do as they are told - why do they think they have the authority to make this demand?</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RtD8VJImeLQ/X3Saxt3zQCI/AAAAAAAABQU/htQOlphl5Ak7JEo-vBau4n9OhPgpmvJNgCLcBGAsYHQ/s434/GP-Annamie%2Bheld%2Bto%2Ba%2Bhigher%2Bstandard%2Bbecause%2Bshe%2Bis%2BJewish-2020-07-13.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="434" height="381" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RtD8VJImeLQ/X3Saxt3zQCI/AAAAAAAABQU/htQOlphl5Ak7JEo-vBau4n9OhPgpmvJNgCLcBGAsYHQ/w405-h381/GP-Annamie%2Bheld%2Bto%2Ba%2Bhigher%2Bstandard%2Bbecause%2Bshe%2Bis%2BJewish-2020-07-13.jpg" width="405" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Another poster demands that a Jewish leadership contest do as they are told and answer a certain question (one I note that Paul has answered - again and again - but never to the satisfaction of some). Demanding Paul answer a question is not anti-Semitic. Demanding that she must answer a question because she is Jewish is anti-Semitic.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Susceptible to Bribery</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Accusing Jews of putting money over anything and everything is a long-enduring anti-Semitic trope. When coupled with the dual loyalty trope, aspersions have been cast on Jews throughout history who would sell their allegiance to the highest bidder. This is anti-Semitic.</span></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RqmxRq6Oxaw/X3SaxTA2WOI/AAAAAAAABQA/5-pcSdu5ngcJ8wE6AgmUyEWjMJlxQNNUACLcBGAsYHQ/s675/CH-Steve%2BMay%2Bliar%2Band%2Blibeller-2020-07-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="430" height="599" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RqmxRq6Oxaw/X3SaxTA2WOI/AAAAAAAABQA/5-pcSdu5ngcJ8wE6AgmUyEWjMJlxQNNUACLcBGAsYHQ/w381-h599/CH-Steve%2BMay%2Bliar%2Band%2Blibeller-2020-07-14.jpg" width="381" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">For the record, Greens - along with everybody else - should not be asking Jewish politicians about their loyalty just because you think Jewish politicians are more susceptible to taking bribes. No one should be asking questions about loyalty and bribery because doing so is anti-Semitic.</span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2pLDrB5m0s8/X3SaxRv1zxI/AAAAAAAABQE/WYDJ33DgskcspQ7Sa3C97-MoH-8eHCdaACLcBGAsYHQ/s425/CH-Steve%2BMay%2Bpaid%2Bby%2BIsrael-2020-07-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="425" height="345" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2pLDrB5m0s8/X3SaxRv1zxI/AAAAAAAABQE/WYDJ33DgskcspQ7Sa3C97-MoH-8eHCdaACLcBGAsYHQ/w423-h345/CH-Steve%2BMay%2Bpaid%2Bby%2BIsrael-2020-07-14.jpg" width="423" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Annamie Paul is not being bribed by the State of Israel. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">And for the record, I am not an Agent of the State of Israel either.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">And finally, it is not an open question as to whether this post is anti-Semitic. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Speaking to Jewish Organizations, Synagogues</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">If I were running for leadership of the Green Party, you can bet that I would try to get in front of as many people as I can, to introduce myself. I would do this at community centres, sporting events, churches, etc. This is what politicians do when they are running for election.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">But Annamie Paul - a Jewish politician - needs to make sure that she visits only the right kind of synagogue - as determined by non-Jewish people.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">That's anti-Semitism.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BVEeTTmtsbE/X3SaxkLSZzI/AAAAAAAABQQ/Vdgxo--AOjEONYCML-kXguxoD2OLEycwACLcBGAsYHQ/s480/GP-Annamie%2BKicked%2BOut-Beth%2BIsrael-2020-07-09.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="108" data-original-width="480" height="88" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BVEeTTmtsbE/X3SaxkLSZzI/AAAAAAAABQQ/Vdgxo--AOjEONYCML-kXguxoD2OLEycwACLcBGAsYHQ/w393-h88/GP-Annamie%2BKicked%2BOut-Beth%2BIsrael-2020-07-09.jpg" width="393" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G_CM0saTvik/X3SaxQtk-rI/AAAAAAAABP8/KH6RpZ0k_ZQH_bmPlFN4PZM_B00GuyHbgCLcBGAsYHQ/s436/CH-Steve%2BMay%2Blying%2Babout%2BBeth%2BIsrael-2020-07-14.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="125" data-original-width="436" height="113" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G_CM0saTvik/X3SaxQtk-rI/AAAAAAAABP8/KH6RpZ0k_ZQH_bmPlFN4PZM_B00GuyHbgCLcBGAsYHQ/w392-h113/CH-Steve%2BMay%2Blying%2Babout%2BBeth%2BIsrael-2020-07-14.jpg" width="392" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Beth Israel is a synagogue in Vancouver. It is a Conservative - fairly mainstream - synagogue. It is not an arm of the Israeli government. It's a synagogue. But even if it were an Orthodox synagogue, why should Paul have been blocked from attending it? The answer appears to be "because Paul is Jewish" - and that's anti-Semitic.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uuZlHWGARFQ/X3Sax_9UuQI/AAAAAAAABQk/j-39nRgQoksLoxjmgzxJey2u15vpaPQDgCLcBGAsYHQ/s476/GP-Paul%2Bneeds%2Bto%2Bbe%2Baccompanied%2Bto%2Bsynagogues-2020-08-29.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="476" height="194" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uuZlHWGARFQ/X3Sax_9UuQI/AAAAAAAABQk/j-39nRgQoksLoxjmgzxJey2u15vpaPQDgCLcBGAsYHQ/w385-h194/GP-Paul%2Bneeds%2Bto%2Bbe%2Baccompanied%2Bto%2Bsynagogues-2020-08-29.jpg" width="385" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Annamie Paul can't be trusted to attend a Jewish faith service because she might fiddle with membership roles or do something funny with the money. It is not clear whether Paul would require a shadow if she attended a friend's wedding at a Catholic church. Calls for following Jewish politicians to synagogues because they may do something wrong with signing up members and taking their money is, well, frankly it's really out there. And it's clearly anti-Semitic.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-coOQMrm8XnE/X3Sazo1q1rI/AAAAAAAABRI/Ff17lFB3qpw0yTH6J-f8o-hVHLGMdYP4QCLcBGAsYHQ/s416/RJ-Critical%2Bof%2BAnnamie%2Bfor%2Battending%2Ba%2BSynagogue-2020-07-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="237" data-original-width="416" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-coOQMrm8XnE/X3Sazo1q1rI/AAAAAAAABRI/Ff17lFB3qpw0yTH6J-f8o-hVHLGMdYP4QCLcBGAsYHQ/w375-h213/RJ-Critical%2Bof%2BAnnamie%2Bfor%2Battending%2Ba%2BSynagogue-2020-07-14.jpg" width="375" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Attending a Jewish faith service does not imply that a politician - even one in the midst of a leadership contest - is attempting to bring religion and governance together. People attend religious services because religion is a part of their identity. Non-Jews don't get to decide which synagogues Jewish people are allowed to attend. Imposing their views of Jewish politicians is anti-Semitic. I wonder if this poster would tell me which churches I should stay away from if I were running for the Party's leadership. I think we know the answer to that question.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /><b>Reject BDS = Complicity in Genocide</b></span><div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here's how extreme some of the posts from the far-left of the Party have become: if you reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, you are complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people. This is not necessarily an anti-Semitic position (many non-Jews reject BDS against Israel), but when applied specifically towards the only Jewish leadership contestant in the Green Party's leadership contest, it is anti-Semitic.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why? The Green Party's Constitution defines the leader in a singular manner: they are to be a "spokesperson" for the Party. This means they don't get to decide what the policies of the Party are. Policy is the exclusive realm of the membership of the Party. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">With regards to BDS, the in 2016, the membership of the Party rejected a policy that would have seen the Party endorse the BDS movement (yes, it was more complicated than that - but the outcome was a rejection of affiliating the Party with BDS). Paul, in her pursuit of the leadership of the Party, has no say in whether the Party supports BDS or not. And the same is true for all other leadership contestants. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">And yet Paul, because she is Jewish, is singled out for her complicity in ethnic cleansing and genocide, while all of the other leadership contestants get a pass.<br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r7dyJeNk9-I/X3SaxuK5TyI/AAAAAAAABQM/3TdFA427xRMLGZ3hf8hXRbdwnLdFeGPegCLcBGAsYHQ/s422/GP-AP%2Banti-BDS-therefore%2Bcomplicit%2Bin%2Bslaughter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="151" data-original-width="422" height="144" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r7dyJeNk9-I/X3SaxuK5TyI/AAAAAAAABQM/3TdFA427xRMLGZ3hf8hXRbdwnLdFeGPegCLcBGAsYHQ/w401-h144/GP-AP%2Banti-BDS-therefore%2Bcomplicit%2Bin%2Bslaughter.jpg" width="401" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Racist Nazi Zionist Infiltrators & Hasbara Trolls</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">When party members state that "only racists" support Israel ("zion Jews"), and wildly claim that "Zionist Infiltrators" are overwhelming the Green Party, and Jews are equated with Nazis - there is a problem in our Party. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WCPSp0tDBKg/X3Sax4GK7QI/AAAAAAAABQc/x5IJzeuRkQIshcRY16Rw-rtkacsl7MNZQCLcBGAsYHQ/s412/GP-Paul%2Bis%2Ba%2Bzionist%2Binfiltrator-2020-08-29.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="191" data-original-width="412" height="182" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WCPSp0tDBKg/X3Sax4GK7QI/AAAAAAAABQc/x5IJzeuRkQIshcRY16Rw-rtkacsl7MNZQCLcBGAsYHQ/w394-h182/GP-Paul%2Bis%2Ba%2Bzionist%2Binfiltrator-2020-08-29.jpg" width="394" /></a></div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_rr6uQBeLCk/X3SayEyA_fI/AAAAAAAABQ0/bKDQ-cNIBnctjxg707mB9BaVGw6ocC_egCLcBGAsYHQ/s461/Jews%2Bare%2BNazis-2020-07-03.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="236" data-original-width="461" height="205" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_rr6uQBeLCk/X3SayEyA_fI/AAAAAAAABQ0/bKDQ-cNIBnctjxg707mB9BaVGw6ocC_egCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h205/Jews%2Bare%2BNazis-2020-07-03.jpg" width="400" /></a><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">And when other Greens point out the racism, anti-Semitism and absurdity of these allegations are labelled "Hasbara" ("in the pay of Israel"), there's really no hope for working things out through conversation and dialogue.</span> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8KxYE86O0b0/X3Saxx75AsI/AAAAAAAABQw/01wr7crBJMMAMjmLu_Ep9Byul95-ja7VQCLcBGAsYHQ/s531/JV-Is%2Bsteve%2Bmay%2Ba%2BHasbara%2Boperative-2020-09-01.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="342" data-original-width="531" height="253" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8KxYE86O0b0/X3Saxx75AsI/AAAAAAAABQw/01wr7crBJMMAMjmLu_Ep9Byul95-ja7VQCLcBGAsYHQ/w393-h253/JV-Is%2Bsteve%2Bmay%2Ba%2BHasbara%2Boperative-2020-09-01.jpg" width="393" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Sweeping Anti-Semitism Under the Rug</b></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Sometimes, moderators for the Green Party of Canada Supporters group would remove specific anti-Semitic comments. But posters were allowed to remain in the group. Instead of ejecting the posters making anti-Semitic statements, the moderators found it easier to rid themselves of Green Party members who called out the anti-Semitism - essentially sweeping it all under the rug. Sometimes this was done in the name of fair comment (made about the Party's only Jewish leadership contestant). Other times because the moderators implied that they were ok with all viewpoints being shared in the group - presumably even those informed by hate.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tFgkC9Df2Ao/X3Sax_Bl0CI/AAAAAAAABQo/Pcp5UfCklf8ujdU0bshZO0HPuUQhQmkUgCLcBGAsYHQ/s492/GPSupporters-Have%2Ba%2Bconversation-moderator%2Bkills%2Bit-2020-07-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="492" height="163" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tFgkC9Df2Ao/X3Sax_Bl0CI/AAAAAAAABQo/Pcp5UfCklf8ujdU0bshZO0HPuUQhQmkUgCLcBGAsYHQ/w410-h163/GPSupporters-Have%2Ba%2Bconversation-moderator%2Bkills%2Bit-2020-07-14.jpg" width="410" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">A fairly typical response by group moderators to criticism about the proliferation of anti-Semitic posts.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">This screencap (below) is of the a post I made shortly before being booted from the group by one of the moderators. This post was eventually removed by group moderators.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C0U-ZF_m8dE/X3Sazhv1t7I/AAAAAAAABRM/CM1NIY8S2wsG8iNiCtRahlGlLGzjuMXOACLcBGAsYHQ/s875/SM-Post%2BRemoved%2Bfrom%2BSupporters%2BGroup-2020-07-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="875" data-original-width="449" height="809" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C0U-ZF_m8dE/X3Sazhv1t7I/AAAAAAAABRM/CM1NIY8S2wsG8iNiCtRahlGlLGzjuMXOACLcBGAsYHQ/w415-h809/SM-Post%2BRemoved%2Bfrom%2BSupporters%2BGroup-2020-07-14.jpg" width="415" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Paul Isn't Here on Her Own Merits</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">The following two screencaps come from a different Facebook group. They describe Paul as a "token" who only appears to be in the leadership race because of Elizabeth May, and is not deserving of being there based on her own accomplishments. This may not be anti-Semitic, but it is certainly misogynistic for a male poster to claim that a black female candidate couldn't make it on her own. These posts were removed by the group moderator.</span></div><div><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Whebs0dkt0/X3Saxz1yMZI/AAAAAAAABQs/XdqH01E-1B0k6qVA8s0g4ccW3O_ER523QCLcBGAsYHQ/s507/Grant%2BPenton-Annamie%2BPaul%2Bis%2Ba%2Bpet-2020-06-26.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="98" data-original-width="507" height="84" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Whebs0dkt0/X3Saxz1yMZI/AAAAAAAABQs/XdqH01E-1B0k6qVA8s0g4ccW3O_ER523QCLcBGAsYHQ/w462-h84/Grant%2BPenton-Annamie%2BPaul%2Bis%2Ba%2Bpet-2020-06-26.jpg" width="462" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sF1egwgeOU8/X3SayapsVfI/AAAAAAAABQ4/LuKrp1Hmz40fvu8xFhDfSmXO5MUUu1gHwCLcBGAsYHQ/s420/MGM-Annamie%2BPaul%2Ba%2BToken01-2020-09-25.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="420" height="178" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sF1egwgeOU8/X3SayapsVfI/AAAAAAAABQ4/LuKrp1Hmz40fvu8xFhDfSmXO5MUUu1gHwCLcBGAsYHQ/w463-h178/MGM-Annamie%2BPaul%2Ba%2BToken01-2020-09-25.jpg" width="463" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ry7PVSSjtS8/X3Say8UepgI/AAAAAAAABRA/CjRIsJDGZZ8hITqrhpBuOYjIQhYKLKKnwCLcBGAsYHQ/s659/MGM-Annamie%2BPaul%2Ba%2BToken02-2020-09-25.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="659" data-original-width="425" height="540" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ry7PVSSjtS8/X3Say8UepgI/AAAAAAAABRA/CjRIsJDGZZ8hITqrhpBuOYjIQhYKLKKnwCLcBGAsYHQ/w348-h540/MGM-Annamie%2BPaul%2Ba%2BToken02-2020-09-25.jpg" width="348" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Paul is Just Too Jewish</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Not sure what to make of this. The poster seems to be saying that he's not against Black women politicians - only those who identify as Black, Jewish woman. And that somehow a Black, Jewish woman is going to fail at promoting Party policy about the climate crisis because she is a Black, Jewish woman.</span></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZeFV4NjZp1I/X3Sazr6cQWI/AAAAAAAABRE/bRAzAZCxBHAaahZo9zdUbs5MpImm0LgrwCLcBGAsYHQ/s488/Paul%2Bbrings%2BJewish%2Bissues%2Bto%2Bleadership%2Bcontest-2020-07-29.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="488" height="392" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZeFV4NjZp1I/X3Sazr6cQWI/AAAAAAAABRE/bRAzAZCxBHAaahZo9zdUbs5MpImm0LgrwCLcBGAsYHQ/w401-h392/Paul%2Bbrings%2BJewish%2Bissues%2Bto%2Bleadership%2Bcontest-2020-07-29.jpg" width="401" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Other Examples of Online Racism from Greens</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">I wish I could say that the Green Party of Canada only has a problem with anti-Semitism - but that wouldn't be truthful. Racism, homo- and transphobia are also serious issues that the Party will have to tackle. They may not have been as apparent to me in the leadership campaign, but they did rear their heads a few times.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here is an exchange between several Green members, the first of whom is Black. Another member, who is white, feels compelled to tell the Black member that they outright don't believe him after he had shared his lived experiences as a Black man with the group.</span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PkQ90SApn18/X3Sazsy-aII/AAAAAAAABRQ/FII3UdwoTNgQaop1rHxOIncQluM0N4YMwCLcBGAsYHQ/s892/SP-I%2Bdont%2Bbelieve%2Byoung%2Bblack%2Bman%2Bhas%2Bexperienced%2Bracism-2020-09-24.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="892" data-original-width="457" height="695" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PkQ90SApn18/X3Sazsy-aII/AAAAAAAABRQ/FII3UdwoTNgQaop1rHxOIncQluM0N4YMwCLcBGAsYHQ/w356-h695/SP-I%2Bdont%2Bbelieve%2Byoung%2Bblack%2Bman%2Bhas%2Bexperienced%2Bracism-2020-09-24.jpg" width="356" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Homophobia</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">*Sigh* From a Green Party member or supporter:</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5vzIoXi6zwI/X3SaxQlbVVI/AAAAAAAABQI/_gAoBk4Pe0gaz_FEOga6LqAmOjE-abIRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s618/Don%2BGustafson-anti-gay-2020-06-11.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="618" data-original-width="516" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5vzIoXi6zwI/X3SaxQlbVVI/AAAAAAAABQI/_gAoBk4Pe0gaz_FEOga6LqAmOjE-abIRQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Don%2BGustafson-anti-gay-2020-06-11.jpg" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">This next set of screenshots was appended to a post that I made wherein I had good things to say about Green Party leadership contestant Glen Murray - who is gay. These posts were ultimately removed by group moderators after my constant pestering. They were available to be read in the group for approximately a week, even though the Green Party member clearly conflates homosexuality with pedophilia.</span></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LfNON3TxU_A/X3Saz1anGdI/AAAAAAAABRU/kuBcB4VCzJ0-uW7n4Rs38x2ztMumXNygwCLcBGAsYHQ/s786/YM-Gay%2BPedophiles%2BMake%2BGay%2BPeople-2020-06-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="786" data-original-width="433" height="631" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LfNON3TxU_A/X3Saz1anGdI/AAAAAAAABRU/kuBcB4VCzJ0-uW7n4Rs38x2ztMumXNygwCLcBGAsYHQ/w347-h631/YM-Gay%2BPedophiles%2BMake%2BGay%2BPeople-2020-06-14.jpg" width="347" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HrqPUXmgKjM/X3Saz2jMWHI/AAAAAAAABRY/d0wvqPtmIFQK1dotem6E6SmQn9VG-MDoACLcBGAsYHQ/s443/YM-Homesexuality%2Band%2BPedo%2Bagain-2020-06-12.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="286" data-original-width="443" height="235" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HrqPUXmgKjM/X3Saz2jMWHI/AAAAAAAABRY/d0wvqPtmIFQK1dotem6E6SmQn9VG-MDoACLcBGAsYHQ/w364-h235/YM-Homesexuality%2Band%2BPedo%2Bagain-2020-06-12.jpg" width="364" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1i9xhp9TQw0/X3Saz1DZ8_I/AAAAAAAABRc/rSbTR6mIenIyfERmnQNOnmjFN5RpHt5zgCLcBGAsYHQ/s803/YM-Homophobic%2BLascaris%2BSupporter-2020-06-08.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="803" data-original-width="432" height="571" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1i9xhp9TQw0/X3Saz1DZ8_I/AAAAAAAABRc/rSbTR6mIenIyfERmnQNOnmjFN5RpHt5zgCLcBGAsYHQ/w307-h571/YM-Homophobic%2BLascaris%2BSupporter-2020-06-08.jpg" width="307" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jS8qYuUU1wY/X3Saz1357eI/AAAAAAAABRg/RPP_NtyoWGMfROx7Cjtrqqn7tJ9bvvrqwCLcBGAsYHQ/s904/YM-No%2Bone%2Bborn%2Bgay-pt1-2020-06-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="904" data-original-width="425" height="637" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jS8qYuUU1wY/X3Saz1357eI/AAAAAAAABRg/RPP_NtyoWGMfROx7Cjtrqqn7tJ9bvvrqwCLcBGAsYHQ/w301-h637/YM-No%2Bone%2Bborn%2Bgay-pt1-2020-06-14.jpg" width="301" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X0X18e4k0o4/X3SazzpF3KI/AAAAAAAABRk/sqFRYMzcGM8LGTX0MBOrIMZG6cFKSDwhQCLcBGAsYHQ/s791/YM-No%2Bone%2Bborn%2Bgay-pt2-2020-06-14.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="791" data-original-width="396" height="575" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X0X18e4k0o4/X3SazzpF3KI/AAAAAAAABRk/sqFRYMzcGM8LGTX0MBOrIMZG6cFKSDwhQCLcBGAsYHQ/w288-h575/YM-No%2Bone%2Bborn%2Bgay-pt2-2020-06-14.jpg" width="288" /></a></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Commonalities</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Thank you for getting this far. I know this was a hard slog - especially if you are a long-time Green Party member like myself. I know I don't like to think that my fellow members could hold dear these sorts of positions. But it's best not to kid ourselves - just because we are Greens, we are not immune from racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, homo- and transphobia. They are as much a part of our political culture as they are a part of Canadian society.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">But I will say one final thing. These few posts that I screencapped over the course of several weeks of the leadership campaign all appear to come from existing and new members of the Green Party. Only in one case could I not confirm or intuit membership (and in that one case, it was apparent that the poster had at one time been a member of the Party). Besides sharing membership in our Party, it was also apparent to me that all of these posters were also supporting candidate Dimitri Lascaris for leadership. To not comment on this point of commonality would be an egregious omission. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">That's not to say that Green members supporting other leadership contestants haven't also made some questionable posts. But with specific regards to anti-Semitism, I can tell you that if those posts are out there, I haven't seen them. I know I'm not infallible, and that my eyes aren't on the internet 24/7. But I'm probably as engaged as the most engaged Green, at least on Facebook (not so much on Twitter).</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">If you want to read more about the Green Party's issues with anti-Semitism stemming from the Lascaris campaign, you may wish to read this important column by David Akin, "<a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7373076/green-party-canada-confronts-anti-semitism/">On eve of leadership choice, Canada’s Greens confront anti-Semitism in their ranks</a>," Global News, October 1 2020. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div><b style="font-family: verdana;">Last Word</b></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Greens, we have to be better than this. We can't stand by idly and do nothing while anti-Semitism tears our party apart. We certainly can't ignore it, hoping it will go away. If this leadership contest has revealed anything, it's that the Party that we love has been seriously infected with anti-Semitism. If we're not careful, and if we don't take better care of the Party, this disgusting condition could be fatal to our hopes and dreams for electoral success.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><i style="font-family: verdana;">(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)</i></div><div><i style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></i></div><div><p></p></div></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-61134322075614093062020-09-27T17:12:00.004-04:002020-09-27T17:24:20.750-04:00Paths to Glory: Green Party Leadership Contestants' Paths to Ranked Ballot Victory<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">With 9 opitions on the Green Party of Canada's leadership ballot, what's it going to take for one of the 8 leadership contestants to emerge victorious on Saturday, October 3 2020?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">For some, there just is no path to victory. For just about everyone else, the Ranked Ballot is going to get a serious workout before anyone will emerge victorious on Saturday. While it could be that a single individual will reach the 50% threshold within the first 3 rounds of counting, that scenario seems incredibly unlikely to me, and it has everything to do with the apparent strengths of each of the campaigns of the more serious contenders.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_HY3c9j4r7k/X3EC20VqYVI/AAAAAAAABNc/xPjJoEzIUQMMCIESuntm3YY8xFFxw6XpgCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="1584" height="200" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_HY3c9j4r7k/X3EC20VqYVI/AAAAAAAABNc/xPjJoEzIUQMMCIESuntm3YY8xFFxw6XpgCLcBGAsYHQ/w501-h200/image.png" width="501" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">By way of background, the Green Party of Canada uses a one-voter one-vote model, so every member's vote carries the same weight - as long as their ballots remain in play. The Ranked ballot allows you to rank all 9 options - or as many or as few as you want to. There are 9 options on the ballot because the Green Party of Canada always includes a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option on all ballots in every vote that it holds (not just for leadership).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Barriers for Pundits</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There has been no polling released to the public that could help voters figure out who the frontrunners are. That leaves pundits like me with a lack of viable information to form our opinions. As you are reading this blogpost, please keep in mind that my opinions are just that - opinions. I have used some metrics to help inform those opinions, including fundraising data, which has been published by the Party monthly since July. Fundraising data published by Elections Canada at the end of Q2 also includes the names of donors who contributed, so there is an opportunity there to figure out how many people are contributing to each of the campaigns at that point in time. So even knowing how much each contestant raised at the end of August, and the number of contributors to each campaign at the end of July - well, you can see that fundraising data is a limited metric. Limited, yes - but not useless.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Some have suggested that social media posts are a good bellwether of voter intention. I mostly disagree, because of the limited number of social media engagements that are available, as well as their overlap. Posts on social media represent a small fraction of voters - but they do say a little something about the intentions of engaged Greens, and for me, that says something about which contestants might have momentum, and those that don't.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Unfortunately, due to the high caliber of each of the campaigns, it has been seriously hard to determine momentum. I can say with a degree of certainty only this: there are two sets of contestants - those that can win, and those that can't. And the former group is more than twice the size of the latter group.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Going forward, you need to know that this post is going to be seriously informed by my own hunches - hunches that I've developed after over a decade of membership in the Green Party, sure. But they're still hunches. I'll try to explain myself as best I can where some additional explanation might help shed light on my opinion. But I have to say, predicting an outcome for this leadership contest has been one of the more difficult political tasks that I've set for myself.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Membership - Who Votes</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Membership in the Party was estimated at around 23,000 at the end of the 2019 election. This leadership contest has apparently seen a striking 12,000 new members sign up. Let's break this down a little bit.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">23,000 members at the end of the 2019 election likely include a fair number of single-purpose members. Those who signed up to support a certain election candidate, for example. Many of these members are not engaged members, and many will not be voting in the leadership contest.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In contrast, those members who have recently signed up are far more likely to be motivated to vote in the contest - likely that was the reason they've signed up in the first place - because they want to vote for a particular candidate. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">What membership numbers can't tell us, though, is which candidates are more likely to be supported by which group of members. There may be a few factors that shed a little light on this - for example, Elections Canada Q2 fundraising numbers showed that Annamie Paul had the highest fundraising total, and that it was distributed among the most individuals, making her funds raised per person amount the lowest out of any contestant's. That suggests to me that she received a lot of small donations - sometimes just $10 - enough to cover the Party's membership fee.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">That's one thing. Another is the reported surge in new members - many disgruntled former New Democrats (or even existing New Democrats, if you believe what you read on Twitter and Facebook - and I do - there's nothing really preventing someone to have membership in another party vote in the Green Party's leadership contest, even though it is against the rules, other than maybe one's personal ethics) are apparently joining the party to support one of several leadership contestants (more on that below). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Long story short: new member are likely to vote, but there are likely fewer of them (12,000) than existing members (23,000). But if only half the existing members vote, it's likely that the decision will be made almost equally by new and existing members. This becomes important when we examine a few of the campaigns in more detail - for the path to victory for some of the candidates lies through existing members, while others will be heavily counting on new members to push them above 50%.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Let's now look at the ballot options.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>None of the Above</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">None of the Above ran a truly lackluster campaign. That said, after 8 long months of robocalls, Zoom meetings, flyers, "debates" where nothing is actually debated, and did I mention endless Zoom meetings - I think None of the Above's chances have improved somewhat. That said, only a cynical contrarian like me would ever think of ranking None of the Above first on their ballots. But keep in mind - the Green Party is filled with cynical contrarians like me (and for the record, while I might have thought about doing it, I didn't actually do it).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j124Pw8zbt4/X3D906d0xrI/AAAAAAAABNQ/5duOBG57_KEJGrlAx6Ghc-nATDWTQQHXQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="635" height="137" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j124Pw8zbt4/X3D906d0xrI/AAAAAAAABNQ/5duOBG57_KEJGrlAx6Ghc-nATDWTQQHXQCLcBGAsYHQ/w217-h137/image.png" width="217" /></a></span></div><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Still, None of the Above is likely to be the first casualty of the ranked ballot. And I don't expect to see any preferences being redistributed to the other contestants (because...None of the Above!).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Party can anticipate fairly static results for the first two rounds of voting. Really, it's the relative placement of each contestant towards one another (or at least for the top 6 who might have a chance at winning) that will matter most in these first two rounds.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But before we get into that, let's discuss the two no-hope contestants, and why even their preferences aren't likely going to have much of an impact on the race when they drop off the ballot.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Andrew West</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ayz6_TYvTZA/X2t4_sADUII/AAAAAAAABLw/TDggIxKC4XQdH4l60z7VVU4PVWop8xAYwCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="349" height="211" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ayz6_TYvTZA/X2t4_sADUII/AAAAAAAABLw/TDggIxKC4XQdH4l60z7VVU4PVWop8xAYwCLcBGAsYHQ/w176-h211/image.png" width="176" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><div style="text-align: left;">Andrew West will be the first leadership contestant to be eliminated from the race. His campaign never caught on, and those that might have considered ranking him high probably realize that there are other candidates out there like Glen Murray, Courtney Howard and Paul who would have a better chance of reaching 50%. I'm not knocking West here (I think he's a great guy and an asset to the Party), but his campaign was never big enough or ambitious enough to challenge his rivals. West will be eliminated after Round 2, and his elimination will have little impact on standings, as less than 5% of voters will have ranked him as their first choice.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /><b>Meryam Haddad</b></span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span><p></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-htKRrsftLCg/X2t5vdfRhFI/AAAAAAAABL8/CBGeP8B1I6QpOCbQFyNyHL3dzu2Cb78jQCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="339" height="215" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-htKRrsftLCg/X2t5vdfRhFI/AAAAAAAABL8/CBGeP8B1I6QpOCbQFyNyHL3dzu2Cb78jQCLcBGAsYHQ/w175-h215/image.png" width="175" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana;">One of the other few things that I am relatively certain of in this leadership contest is that Meryam Haddad will be the second contestant to be eliminated from the ballot. Haddad's campaign suffered from two significant problems, one of which was out of her control, the other which was of her making. Throughout the contest, and especially in the week leading up to voting, Haddad found herself in hot water with voters and the Party over several public comments she made - about wanting to make the Green Party more hostile; about endorsing the provincial B.C. Ecosocialist Party (although she denies she endorsed that party); and about making accusations against former Green Party leader Elizabeth May being part of a "pattern of harassment".</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">While some have clearly been energized by Haddad - especially her attacks on the Party and Elizabeth May - I think it's fair to say that most Greens, including those new to the Party, have pretty serious affection and respect for May. Attacking the Party for what amounts to doing its job (the Party ejected Haddad from the leadership contest over what it refers to as Haddad's bringing disrepute on the Party for endorsing the BC Ecosocialists over our provincial cousins, the BC Greens; Haddad appealed, and was reinstated), and May for agreeing with many Greens that her support for the Ecoscialists was entirely unbecoming for a Green Party of Canada leadership contestant will have cost her support up and down the ballot.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Note that these weren't rookie errors on Haddad's part - at least I don't think they were. Haddad's actions, looked at her from point of view, might even be considered principled. Haddad, a member of Quebec Solidaire, is a self-described socialist. She is running for leadership of the Green Party so that she can lead the Green Party into becoming a socialist party - something that is no longer recognizably a Green Party. Haddad is part of an insurgency being waged against the Green Party by outside forces who would transform the Green Party.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And that's the other reason why Haddad never really had a chance. Although her actions might resonate with this insurgent group - whom many of the new members and a few of our original members clearly belong to - she was never their figurehead, their chosen one. She may garner some top rank support from the socialists, safe with the knowledge that they can then rank Dimitri Lascaris No. 2 and still keep him in the game. This might count for as much as 5% of top ranked support, but likely little more.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Glen Murray</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And now we get into that part of the ballot where I am seriously going on hunches, as just about anybody from here on in can win the leadership.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Glen Murray should have been able to leverage his serious past advantages as Mayor of Winnipeg and a cabinet Minister in Ontario's government led by former Premier Kathleen Wynne. He's the only leadership contestant in the race to ever have been elected to, well, pretty much anything. His resume is deep, and his understanding of the issues are second to none. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But his campaign has just never really caught on. Greens outside of Manitoba and Ontario don't know him very well - and Greens in Ontario might be more used to voicing their opposition to him, rather than their support. Murray's first tactical mistake of the campaign happened before the campaign got under way: he should have run for the Green Party in the 2019 federal election. He didn't, and that has really hurt his chances, as he now looks like a bit of an opportunist, sweeping in on a leaderless party to take it over. That several other candidates are doing the exact same as Murray, it's likely Murray's past Liberal credentials that make Murray's actions a little more egregious in the eyes of Greens.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zvm-dOqgw-A/X2t6DPsiBeI/AAAAAAAABME/Wtebb7_vnMYuzfDUc70xz_A6SNYWepw8QCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="555" data-original-width="476" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zvm-dOqgw-A/X2t6DPsiBeI/AAAAAAAABME/Wtebb7_vnMYuzfDUc70xz_A6SNYWepw8QCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="206" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana;">And Murray has had a few mis-steps along the way. To me, it's pretty clear that Murray doesn't have a lot of respect for our marquee carbon fee and dividend policy to fi</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">ght climate change. And lately he has gone on record saying that there may be times a Green caucus uses a whip on certain votes. And that's pretty much anath</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">ema for Greens.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Does Murra</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">y have a path to victory? If there is one, it's a very dimly lit path. Murray is going to have to outperform one of the following: Howard, Paul or David Merner, with 1st rank support and the preferences of Andrew West (which won't amount to much, but which still could see a plurality flow to Murray). If he accomplishes this, it'll be Howard, Paul or Merner ejected from the ballot before him, and he might be able to keep building on the basis of preferences from the other two. He's not going to pick up any support from Lascaris, and he'll get only minimal support from Amita Kuttner. Murray needs to stay ahead of Howard, Paul and Merner. If he can pull that off, he just might win this thing.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But I still think that's a longshot, given how the campaigns of Merner, Howard and Paul appear to have had a lot more resonance with Green voters. And with</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> Murray having done himself few favours to dispel the notion that he is an outsider, that's going to cost him support up and down the ballot - and it's why I'm selecting Murray to be eliminated in Round 4.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Amita Kuttner</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If there is one leadership contestant for whom I feel unprepared to make an informed guess about, it's Amita Kuttner. Their campaign has appeared to be a serious enigma for me. It's generally been a positive campaign, but at the same time, I has been only moderately successful in attracting voters. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-r1lt_nrDqAk/X2t7ShK7JfI/AAAAAAAABMY/CqTzyusZiF4j3S04Fb79Zi5hfCxFeLKOACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: verdana; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="568" data-original-width="479" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-r1lt_nrDqAk/X2t7ShK7JfI/AAAAAAAABMY/CqTzyusZiF4j3S04Fb79Zi5hfCxFeLKOACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="202" /></a></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So I've got to judge Kuttner's campaigns relative to that of the other campaigns. Kuttner's path to victory is, I think, extremely difficult. It requires Kuttner to stay ahead of one of Merner, Paul, Howard or Murray AND to be ahead of Lascaris on that round that he's eliminated. I expect that Kuttner can pick up enough of Lascaris' preferences to propel them over the 50% margin, if it comes down to a straight fight between Kuttner and one of Merner/Pau/Howard/Murray.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And if it comes down to a straight fight between Lascaris and Kuttner, I also think Kuttner can likely win, as long as they and Lascaris are fairly close in vote percentage heading into that last round - and especially if it were Paul or Murray who had just been knocked out (because I believe Paul's and Murray's preferences are the least likely to go to Lascaris, while a greater percentage - but not a plurality - of Howard's and Merner's might end up with Lascaris).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Watch for Kuttner's position on the first ballot, relative to Merner/Paul/Howard/Murray. If Kuttner is ahead of 3 of these, they may have what it takes to make it to the end. If Kuttner is behind 3 of these, I think they're out. And I think they will be - behind Merner, Howard and Paul - that's why I'm selecting Amita Kuttner to be eliminated after the 5th round.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Courtney Howard</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Howard has run an extremely effective, very positive, if limited campaign. Greens who are taking the time to check her out are liking what they're seeing. She hasn't upset any applecarts, and you'd be hard pressed to find any Green who has an axe to grind with her. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">All of this is why just about every voter is going to rank Howard somewhere near the middle or the top of their ballots. And if a few things in the count break her way, she could win this. Like Murray, though, Howard needs to stay ahead of one of Paul, Merner and Murray on ever round of counting, as we can expect a good deal of their preferences to break to Howard should they be eliminated. Unlike Murray, Howard is probably well-positioned to pick up a fair number of Kuttner's preferences too. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But Howard's sure path to victory is the following: if she remains on the ballot after both Kuttner and Lascaris are eliminated, I believe she'll be the next leader of the Green Party of Canada. Lascaris' preferences - if they don't go to Kuttner - will probably mostly end up with Howard. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0Awc0xOs7wA/X2t6yPE7ilI/AAAAAAAABMQ/34e2N6EuVSs19UmCj3NomrlCnCeesmPBACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: verdana; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="347" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0Awc0xOs7wA/X2t6yPE7ilI/AAAAAAAABMQ/34e2N6EuVSs19UmCj3NomrlCnCeesmPBACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="195" /></a></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is a longshot though, as I don't foresee Howard having the staying power to outlast both Kuttner and Lascaris - and that's because I think that as long as one of Kuttner or Lascaris remains in the race, a plurality of their preferences could be expected to go to the other (although I remain very uncertain about whether that's true in the case of Kuttner.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Howard's campaign could have benefited from a little more exposure, a little more money, and a little more familiarity with the Green Party. Although she has never run for the Party before and has opted to take the plunge in our leadership contest, unlike Murray, Greens just seem to consider her more "one of us". Which is not to suggest that some aren't troubled by her desire to seek the leadership as her first political action in the Party.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I just don't think that Howard will be able to overcome this feeling that I have that Greens still don't really know her. And it is just a feeling - although it's informed by a number of factors as I've indicated. Yes, I think her campaign has experienced a little momentum in September, and that might be enough to push her above Murray. But I just don't think she's going to be able to outflank Merner or Paul - and, along with bumping Murray off the ballot, that's where her path to victory has to lead.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I believe Howard will bow out in Round 7.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Annamie Paul</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Look, let me be clear about something. If Paul has signed up a majority of those new members, she could potentially win this thing on the first ballot. Her campaign was the first to really take off in the spring / early summer, and she's raised a tonne of cash for the party. She's received the most mainstream media attention of any candidate, and now she's running for the Party in the Toronto Centre by-election. Without question, Paul has been the "candidate to beat" in this leadership contest.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V0J8CUpKL5w/X2t8vkekz-I/AAAAAAAABM0/vgskBSSh84gaKX7K83ZrLdJZ3BzUrmF0QCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: verdana; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="535" data-original-width="341" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V0J8CUpKL5w/X2t8vkekz-I/AAAAAAAABM0/vgskBSSh84gaKX7K83ZrLdJZ3BzUrmF0QCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="153" /></a></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Some have suggested that she has benefited unfairly from Elizabeth May, who has appeared at events, and helped her fundraise. I don't think there's any question that appearing at May's side has left an impression with voters that Paul is the real deal - if not the "annointed one". Whether one interprets that impression as a positive or a negative is informed by one's feelings for Elizabeth May.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Therefore, Paul's path to victory seems pretty straightforward: claim the top position on the ballot and pick up enough preferences from Murray/Merner/Howard to propel her above 50%.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">What prevents Paul from winning it all are two contestants: Amita Kuttner and Dimitri Lascaris. If Lascaris is close to her after the first ballot, we're going to be in for a long night. Lascaris can count on more of Kuttner's preferences that Paul can. If Kuttner outperforms Murray/Howard/Merner, than Lascaris will probably win it. If Kuttner drops off before two of Murray/Howard/Merner, Paul may have a much clearer path to victory - as long as she is ahead of Merner at this point.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And here I am back to Kuttner again, and just being uncertain of where their campaign fits in with this contest. I have a sense that a good number of Kuttner's preferences will break to Lascaris, and to a lesser degree, Merner/Howard. If Merner and Howard are still in the race when Kuttner drops off, if Kuttner has an unexpectedly high amount of support, that could be the end of Paul.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And that's why I'm selecting Paul for elimination in Round 7. I do think Kuttner will perform more strongly than suspected, out-performing Murray - and even if they drop off before Howard and Merner, ultimately a good number, if not a majority, of Kuttner's preferences will work their way to Merner - enough to boost him above Paul. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Dimitri Lascaris</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Lascaris is the leadership contestant that everybody seems to love or loathe - at least among engaged members of the party. Lascaris' path to victory is a simple one on paper: sign up a hell of a lot of new members, and convince enough existing members the he won't be toxic for the Party, as some (like me) have claimed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-SJ1xku7xu2A/X2t8FHb40rI/AAAAAAAABMk/z24Dqc7mg9wewnLOLmL1pybiDXLHWIeggCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: right; float: right; font-family: verdana; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="508" height="203" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-SJ1xku7xu2A/X2t8FHb40rI/AAAAAAAABMk/z24Dqc7mg9wewnLOLmL1pybiDXLHWIeggCLcBGAsYHQ/w188-h203/image.png" width="188" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana;">Without question, Lascaris has ran a masterful campaign as leader of the insurgency. A good number of those approximately 12,000 new members are likely here for his campaign. He's used his time in the campaign to steer away from the divisive issue of Israel/Palestine and BDS (although his supporters appear to want to talk about nothing but). He's done a very good job of pretending to be a moderate radical - and it might be enough to convince Greens who aren't paying attention to what's going on to cast their ballot for him, or to rank him high so that he gets their preferences when other contestants like Howard or Merner drop off.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Those paying attention have been sounding the alarm, though. We realize that Lascaris is here to transform the Green Party into a socialist party, taking us backward, and pretty much killing any hope we have of being electable. Lascaris, a former New Democrat who worked on Niki Ashton's losing leadership campaign (to take the NDP further to the left), has surrounded himself with disgruntled New Democrats and others who refer to themselves as "ecosocialists". Their objective is to create a confrontational party that champions nationalization and the elimination of capitalism as preconditions for fighting climate change. They sincerely believe that any effort to reduce emissions is doomed to fail under a capitalist economic system.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Thing is, I'm not so sure I disagree with all of that (although nationalization of the fossil fuel industry, just at a time where we can expect it to seriously start losing shrinking due to disappearing demand). Capitalism is a serious barrier to climate action.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But so is not being at the table - and that's what Lascaris and his followers seem to want to gloss over. Canadians aren't going to elect a socialist party to power - not now, not for a long while. The NDP has been around for, what? 60 years? And they've never formed government federally. And the NDP isn't socialist enough for these socialists.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Alarms have been sounding about the socialist insurgency, and about Dimitri Lascaris himself. Lascaris was one of the key players in the 2016 Green Party BDS episode, at that time being a member of Elizabeth May's shadow cabinet. Lascaris was later booted from Shadow Cabinet for a critical open letter he wrote to then BC Green leader, Andrew Weaver. He ultimately left the Party, joined the NDP, and when they rebuffed his candidate, came back to the Green Party just as May announced that she was stepping down. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Without question, a Lascaris victory will lead to an existential crisis for the Green Party. It's no secret that May is no fan of Lascaris', and others believe that the direction he will take the party in will mean a decade of being lost in the wilderness. I just don't see May staying the in the Party should Lascaris become the next leader. Greens on social media are already pledging to join May in leaving the Party, not wanting to waste valuable time and energy on a cause that has no hope for a Party whose fundamental values will have shifted with a new leader.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">All of that said, Lascaris appears to have a pretty good chance of winning. But a ballot count that goes 8 rounds is probably going to be a problem for him, as his best chances of picking up support will be after the elimination of Haddad and Kuttner (and to a lesser degree, Howard and Merner). He's going to have to be very close to 50% when Howard or Merner come off of the ballot.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">A strong showing in first ranked ballots are what Lascaris needs to win (and you might just as well add his first ballot percentage to Haddad's, because her preferences are going to overwhelmingly flow to him).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>David Merner</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FzTgDDPwy3w/X2t8ZwH8fUI/AAAAAAAABMs/o_G57tLiavkAaZamQW6yRhRQd9q252YigCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: verdana; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="502" data-original-width="330" height="240" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FzTgDDPwy3w/X2t8ZwH8fUI/AAAAAAAABMs/o_G57tLiavkAaZamQW6yRhRQd9q252YigCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" width="158" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana;">I keep seeing David Merner being referred to as "everybody's second choice", and there appears to be something to that. Merner has run a solid campaign that has seen him play friendly with just about all of the other candidates. There is certainly no doubt that Merner would make an excellent leader for our Party. And he's also the one most likely to find himself being sent to Ottawa after the next election, having finished a close second in the 2019 race to take his home seat of Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke. Merner also benefits from being the Vancouver Island candidate, where Greens are thick on the ground.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And I think he's going to have the staying power to take the whole thing. If it comes down to Merner, Lascaris and Paul, as I am predicting, if it's Paul that ends up existing the ballot, Merner is very likely to win it. If it's Merner that leaves, depending on how close Paul and Lascaris are to one another, a Paul victory might be a little less certain, as some of Merner's preferences will go to Lascaris. If it's Lascaris that drops off, Merner should be able to take it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>What to Watch For After the Initial Results are Announced</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Round 1 will be the most important round for the ballot. We should be able to see some of the trends start to develop at that time, but we probably won't be able to rely on those trends to extrapolate a winner, unless either Lascaris or Paul have captured a serious amount of the vote. If either are up above 40%, it's probably game over. If Paul is above 35%, I don't see how anybody is going to catch her.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">And frankly, yes, it's only Paul and Lascaris out of the serious contestants </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">(Howard/Kuttner/Lascaris/Merner/Murray/Paul)</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> that I believe could find themselves with such a large percentage of the vote. But even I don't think that's going to happen. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If Paul, Merner, Murray, Kuttner or Howard get over 25% in the first round, that's likely going to be enough for them to cruise to victory. The same is not necessarily so for Lascaris. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">To read Lascaris' chances for success based on first round placement, do the following: add his percentage to Haddad's, and then take 2/3's of Kuttners. If he's at 50% with that, he'll probably win. If he's close, there's a good chance he'll win. If he's at 40-42%, I don't think he's going to do it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If Kuttner/Murray/Merner/Howard are bunched up in the middle, the way that they exit the ballot will matter. In my scenario above, I have Murray exiting first, followed by Kuttner. But if the order of exit changes, that might be to to Paul's benefit or detriment, depending on whether Lascaris is in the race on the final ballot. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Scenario</b></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cI1iaJ-6Tyg/X3D9Mxk4skI/AAAAAAAABNI/eomVcGOIzdo4wc7Z_5He3G8GC2KGSqtvwCLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="1571" height="93" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cI1iaJ-6Tyg/X3D9Mxk4skI/AAAAAAAABNI/eomVcGOIzdo4wc7Z_5He3G8GC2KGSqtvwCLcBGAsYHQ/w608-h93/image.png" width="608" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Scenario Methodology - where "100 Votes" are a stand-in for Actual Votes Cast</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)</i></span></p></span><p></p></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-37828494754718669662020-09-04T02:10:00.001-04:002020-09-04T10:13:48.493-04:00Higgs the Big Winner in New Brunswick Leader's Debate<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> <span style="background-color: white; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem;">Last night's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CEkOX2uaFA">New Brunswick leader's debate</a> was rather interesting - for several reasons.</span></span></p><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">First, Premier Higgs was under attack from all sides for calling an unnecessary election. Higgs nevertheless handled himself well, although his anger was quite apparent and a little unbecoming.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">People's Alliance Party leader Kris Austin appeared to be the most polished, and probably the best versed on the issues. He oozed charm and credibility - although I found some of his statements (like being proud about unilingual emergency services) a little off-putting. But there is no denying that Austin shone on this stage, making a strong pitch to voters to elect his MLA's to parliament.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">NDP leader Mackenzie Thomason, just 23 years old (and played up his youth with a sharp Jimmy Olsen bow-tie), was the other stand-out of the debate. He knew his stuff, spoke off-the-cuff very well, hitting all of the high notes on issues from the economy and health care to regional development. Watch this guy - he is going to be a rising star in his party. If anybody was wondering whether a vote for the NDP in New Brunswick would be a "wasted" vote, Thomason firmly answered that question last night with a loud "No Way!"</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Liberal Leader Kevin Vickers was probably the most underwhelming. I expected a lot more from Vickers - but largely he stuck to his talking points, and looked very uncomfortable with his wooden delivery. Higgs essentially manhandled him every time there was a confrontation between the two. It didn't help that in certain camera angles, Vickers make-up turned his face the colour of his tie - beet-red. Going on about untested technology (small modular nuclear reactors) made him look scary and fringe. And essentially calling the Moderator a liar at one point really sunk Vickers.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Green Party leader David Coon gave a bit of an unremarkable performance, providing few specifics about what Greens would do to influence the next government. Coon was most at home speaking about environmental issues, like Maritime Iron and the Paris Agreement. Coon's relaxed performance was remarkable (how could he be so cool in such a high pressure situation?) - but he came across as being a indifferent and lacking passion - except during a strange exchange between himself and Vickers where Vickers accused the Greens of walking away from some vote or the other (rich coming from Vickers who actually walked away from the all-Party committee that led to this election, and whose party abstained from voting on the budget). Vickers even made a pitch to Green voters, claiming in defiance of evidence, that the Liberals are "greener than the Greens". But even then, Coon failed to capitalize on this opening.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">And finally, what on earth was the "Keep It Simple Solutions" Party leader doing in this debate? They're not even registering in the polls, they don't have any sitting MLAs. And their bewildered leader was completely out of place on that stage. The only thing I learned about KISS is that their leader has an allergy to cattle, and embraces homeopathy (of all things).</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I suspect the media will spin this in the following way: Higgs winning the debate, despite being under fire, with Vickers wooden, shakey, and angry - especially when taking on the Moderator. Vickers really doesn't appear ready to be Premier. Possibly the media will also remark on the strong performances for Austin and Thomason.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">But whatever the spin is likely to be, last night's debate was not very helpful to David Coon and the Green Party. At this point in the election, it might be too much to expect the NDP to start climbing in the polls. But Thomason's strong performance means that their polling numbers aren't likely to collapse further.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Coon needed to make the case that the Green Party was the only party that could hold the Progressive Conservatives accountable. Kevin Vickers opened the door for that to happen. But Coon just didn't walk through it.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: var(--primary-text); font-size: 0.9375rem; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">One final note: Who else here is getting sick and tired of political debates where zero questions are asked about the biggest issue of our times - the climate emergency? I am just so fucking fed up that debate organizers at all levels are ignoring this. It's an injustice to the voting public, in my opinion.</span></span></div><div class="bi6gxh9e" style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="oi732d6d ik7dh3pa d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v knj5qynh oo9gr5id" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: helvetica;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)</i></span></span></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-66477184597283877162020-08-06T08:26:00.001-04:002020-08-06T09:46:04.694-04:00Here's Why a Letter to the Editor from Ward 2 Councillor's Adviser Published Today in the Sudbury Star is Misleading - and Unhelpful<div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">I just read this<a href="https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/sudbury-letter-city-not-protecting-water"> letter</a> to the Editor of the Sudbury Star from Tom Price, who is an adviser to Ward 2 Councillor Michael Vagnini. I have serious concerns about this letter due to a number of things in it that are simply not true. </span></div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">As some here know, I am an <a href="http://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-kingsway-cases-at-lpat.html">appellant</a> to the Kingsway Entertainment District matter presently before the LPAT. I am also a blogger and Star columnist who writes about the environment. I believe it's important to get one's facts right when calling for<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;"> measures to be taken to address important issues. I'd say that's important for any member of the public.</span></span></div><div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; display: inline;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">It's doubly so when one has some kind of official capacity in government. I understand that people who have political agendas don't always tell the whole truth, in order to further their agendas. But this letter from Tom Price goes much further than that. He is simply not telling the truth on a few significant matters here.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="_4yxo" style="font-weight: 600;">Water Quality - An Important Municipal Issue</span></div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Water quality - especially for drinking water sources - is a serious issue in our City. In my opinion, it's one that isn't being addressed adequately by our elected officials and city managers who rely on dated minimum standards. I have called for <a href="Freeze Development Around Ramsey Lake Until Priority Ramsey Lake Watershed Study is Completed">freezing development around Ramsey Lake</a> until the completion of the Ramsey Lake Watershed Study, and until its recommendations can be worked into municipal policy documents like the official plan. That would be one way for the city to demonstrate a more serious commitment to protecting at risk lakes from the impacts of development.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">What is not helpful in these sorts of discussions is to make claims that are not supported by facts and evidence. Price does this in a number of locations in his letter. It's almost as if he wants to present a distorted picture to the public to further his own (or if not his own, than someone's) narrative.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="_4yxo" style="font-weight: 600;">Source Water Protection and the KED</span></div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In this letter, Price concludes that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) "deemed source water protection not important to decisions regarding" the KED and "taxpayers need an explanation of why source water protection is not part of considerations by LPAT" for the KED. Nothing could be further from the truth. </div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is true that the LPAT dismissed the Minnow Lake Restoration Group's appeal of the parking lot zoning by-law, but it was not because LPAT believed source water protection was unimportant. It was actually the complete opposite. LPAT sided with the developer (not the City) who initiated the motion to dismiss Minnow Lake's appeal BECAUSE the proponent had undertaken studies to demonstrate that impacts of salt migration on Ramsey Lake (a drinking water source) could be mitigated, and that Minnow Lake - not coming to the table with its own technical studies to back up its opinion those mitigation methods called for in the developer's Plan wouldn't be enough, was raising apprehension instead of addressing an issue on which the LPAT could adjudicate. In other words, the LPAT decided it wasn't good enough to just say "we don't believe the technical studies are good enough" without presenting actual evidence to the contrary.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">That said, there are some serious flaws to the Source Water Protection process, in my opinion. But rather than identify that the KED developer undertook technical studies, developed a Plan to identify potential harmful substances (including road salt) and measures to mitigate impacts from those substances, and that the City reviewed and approved this plan n compliance with our Source Water Protection Plan, Price simply provides a throw-away statement the LPAT didn't care about protecting water quality.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="_4yxo" style="font-weight: 600;">Valley East Twin Pad</span></div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Similarly, Price claims that Council isn't doing its due diligence with regards to the Valley East Twin Pad. Here he goes so far as to claim that the Valley East Twin Pad will "present a major risk to the municipal water supply" - a drinking water source that Price says "already exceeds Public Health recommendations" and that Council was "not following the advice of" municipal technical experts.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">None of this is actually true in any meaningful way. While it is true that there is a drinking water source (a municipal well) in proximity to the proposed Twin Pad arena in the Valley, and that drinking water source - along with other municipal wells in the Valley - is under stress due to the presence of contamination - the well is still being used to provide safe, clean drinking water to Valley residents. Public Health has not recommended that use be discontinued.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is also true that the well is expected to be impacted by the Twin Pad. And that's why the City followed its Source Water Protection Plan and developed a strategy to mitigate those potential impacts. As with the KED, no strategy is going to mitigate every single expected impact. But mitigation here was deemed possible and appropriate by City staff - those technical experts whose advice Price insists Council did not follow. Again, the opposite is actually true.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="_4yxo" style="font-weight: 600;">Lake Nepahwin</span></div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">And finally, Price raises the matter of Lake Nepahwin and a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/sudbury-lake-nepahwin-phosphorus-levels-1.5660236">recent study</a> that shows that lake as being in serious trouble. What Price doesn't do, however, is identify Lake Nepahwin as not being a drinking water source. Instead he lumps it in with Ramsey Lake and a municipal well in the Valley. This is an important omission, because the level of protection for water quality for drinking water sources is much higher than for surface water features that are not the sources of potable water. </div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Price also fails to identify that the Lake Nepahwin report concluded that the majority of the damage that we can expect to see in the Lake has already been done, and little further opportunity exists to do more damage, due to the fact that there are few available places on the lake for more development, and due to the fact that the City has been paying closer attention to things like road salt and phosphorous run-off into all urban lakes.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="_4yxo" style="font-weight: 600;">The Sudbury Star</span></div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I often call the Sudbury Star out for publishing letters that offer opinions that are clearly based on nonsense or that are unsupported by facts and evidence. I can't do so here for two reasons. First, a lot of this is very technical and easily misrepresented by those who either don't care about the nuances of how policy, regulation and reports interact to better protect our natural environment. It's a lot easier to claim that something lakes aren't being protected than to explain how they're not being protected. And let's face it, I agree with Price's thesis that the City should be doing more to protect vulnerable lakes. But it's unhelpful when conclusions are distorted and facts are invented to support that thesis.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="color: #1d2129; direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Second, Price is a political animal. He advises a municipal Councillor - one whom many believe has ambitions beyond Ward 2. By publishing this letter, the Star is contributing to the political discussion in our community - if not helpfully advancing concerns of citizens who have long been involved with trying to push the City towards more protection for vulnerable lakes. Those people (and I am not one of them) have experienced considerable success over the years - and have made our City a better place for everyone to live.</div><div class="_2cuy _3dgx _2vxa" style="direction: ltr; margin: 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)</i></span></span></div></span></div>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-13961991930070458732020-06-23T18:28:00.000-04:002020-06-23T18:28:07.704-04:00Quick Impressions of the TVO Green Party of Canada Leadership Contestant Debates<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Two really great, if quick, leadership contestant debates were held today. Hosted by Steve Paikin of TVO's The Agenda (who runs a pretty tight ship when it comes to debates), leadership contestants, in two groups, were put on the spot to discuss timely issues of the day, like defunding the police, as well as existential matters like the Green Party's relevance and position in Canada's political climate.</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tbb02eDqOhE/XvKB1oh3ccI/AAAAAAAABKU/xhdgAXbh9rsJCVa2nt79lL9rHI_sbzJLACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/screencap.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="511" data-original-width="659" height="310" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tbb02eDqOhE/XvKB1oh3ccI/AAAAAAAABKU/xhdgAXbh9rsJCVa2nt79lL9rHI_sbzJLACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/screencap.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span><div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">The first debate was held between Annamie Paul, David Merner, Judy Green, Glen Murray and Amita Kuttner. The second involved Dimitry Lascaris, Meryam Haddad, Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and Courtney Howard and Adam West - the latter two of which were both absent from this past Sunday's Fair Vote Canada debate (Howard did submit videos to Fair Vote in advance of that debate).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Winners and Losers</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Look, it's still so early in the campaign that being a "winner" or "loser" in a particular debate really doesn't matter that much. It's June - is anybody really paying attention yet?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Cross all of that out - of course this TVO debate matters. It's not so much that people will be looking at at this at the end of June and thinking, "Hmmm...I really liked so-and-so, maybe I'll try to remember who they are and in September, I'll vote for them". The fact is these TVO debates are going to be up online for the remainder of the leadership contest. They will be go-to sources for Greens - including many in the Green base who want to be a little more informed about the candidates. The fact that Paikin and TVO are involved automatically bump up the importance of these debates. So make no mistake, these debates were important.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">And you know what? All of the candidates impressed today. I don't have a lot to say that's particularly negative. The debate itself was mostly civil, and the candidates were generally well spoken. There was only one real exchange that stood out for me, where </span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Meryam Haddad called out Dylan Perceval-Maxwell's "$20 solution" to the police issues as "completely racist" right at the end of the second debate - just as time ran out for any rebuttal - was probably the one moment where I felt a bit of a knock-out punch - and let me be honest here about this: from what I've seen of Haddad, I'm not a fan - I won't be voting for her - but with regards to this moment, she was 100% right to call out her fellow leadership contestant in the way that she did. And if it had been anybody but Perceval-Maxwell, it might have meant something.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><b>Dylan Perceval-Maxwell</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">So let's start with Perceval-Maxwell. He clearly doesn't belong in this contest. He may be all right to listen to, and perhaps it's true that every leadership contest needs someone on the fringe who can say things about political opponents that legit contestants can't, but all of that is offset by his meandering answers to questions. And that top hat just screams "I'm not a serious candidate". And he's not. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">It's also been twice now that he's brought up endorsing strategic voting as a way of helping the Green Party. Yes, if you can believe that, we have a leadership contestant who actively wants to tell Green members and supporters in certain parts of the country NOT to vote for the Green Party. I don't know how many times it needs to be hammered home: strategic voting doesn't work. Greens should not be supporting Liberals and New Democrats. And the Green Party will *never* get the NDP to not run candidates against us somewhere - anywhere.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I think I'm pretty much done with Perceval-Maxwell.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Andrew West</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Today was West's first debate with some of the candidates, as he had missed the Fair Vote Debate for some reason (I'd still like to know why, Andrew....). West came across as affable, if a little off his game. He was the only contestant who dared admit that he was a centrist and viewed the Party in the same way. West's whole thing is that the Party should be promoting the fact that it is fiscally responsible - but it was pretty clear from an exchange he had with Dimitri Lascaris that his version of "responsible" differs significantly from Lascaris' - and frankly from mine, too. Although I'll give West the benefit of the doubt that his half-hearted and quick rebuttal to Lascaris could have been more substantive had their been time, so I don't want to suggest that West and I are completely out of line with another on this.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">But about "time" - if West is going to be taken as a serious contestant, he's going to really need to up his game to compress MORE into the time he's been given. If Perceval-Maxwell's responses were wandering, West's were needlessly pedantic. And since one of the things I've stated time and again that I'm looking for in a leader is someone who can be a good spokesperson for the Party - well, West just isn't there yet. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Meryam Haddad</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Haddad had a good debate. She came across as being far less radical that she was at the Fair Vote debate. That doesn't mean that I believe something has changed in her heart since Sunday - but rather that she was able to present herself a little more seriously for a broader audience while still staying true to herself. For example, she appeared to throw moderator Paikin for a bit of a loop when she brought up abolishing the police - but she continued to carry on as if the idea was simply one that perhaps others hadn't arrived at yet, but through the force of history, would get there some day, while being very personable. It's difficult to walk that tightrope - especially in a Party where many members would NEVER consider themselves to be left-wingers, much less socialists like Haddad. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I'm not going to vote for Haddad because I still believe she wants the Green Party to be something that it's not. But if all you knew about Haddad was what you saw on TVO today, you certainly might want to rank her high on your ballot (even if fools like me are whispering in your ear, 'don't be fooled').</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Annamie Paul</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Perhaps my biggest disappointment today was Annamie Paul. In contrast to some of the other contestants that Paul was debating, her answers to questions generally lacked specifics. The vagueness, though, wasn't a particular problem (how much detail can you really get into with just 60 seconds? Ok, maybe Judy Green could pull it off - and did, but not everyone can). What turned me off more than anything was that Paul just seemed less than genuine.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Clearly, Paul had been well-coached: don't ever yield the floor, just keep on talking (because when you're talking, your opponents aren't talking). Speak over others if you can (because then no one hears your opponent). Interrupt. Try to take the floor back. All of these are classic techniques for winning debates. And she did a very good job of employing those tactics. Thing is, though, none of the other contestants were going to play those games, so the fact that she was employing these tactics really stood out for me. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one with whom she's left a negative impression.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">The Fair Vote Canada debate didn't really allow any of the candidates to do what Paul did today. But even in that debate, Paul's answers to questions were a little vague and lacklustre. After watching her in two debates now, it's becoming clear to me that she's just a little underwhelming in circumstances like this. Now I know that we should never judge leadership on "debates" - but I also know that being the Leader of the Green Party means that you're going to have to explain yourself (very quickly, because the media isn't going to give the 5th party much time to get into the weeds). And from what I've seen, there are better contestants to do this than Paul.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Amita Kuttner</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I don't know what to say about Kuttner. They had a better debate this time than the Fair Vote debate for sure. They answered questions directly and succinctly - which was really great and in contrast to Perceval-Maxwell, West and Paul. I like that (again, I think there's a reason Elizabeth May speaks so quickly, because you're not going to have much time to - oh, just re-read what I wrote above!). Kuttner is clearly in touch with issues that have suddenly been thrust to the forefront of political discussion. But there is clearly something of a hard edge to Kuttner that I find off-putting and unfriendly. They may know the issues very well, but I think they've got to work on that whole "spokesperson" thing a lot more. And again, maybe in a few years, who knows?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Courtney Howard</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">This was Howard's first leadership debate - and as far as I know, it might also have been her political debate. I don't think Howard's ever run for anything before. And yes, I do find it kind of odd that not having run for anything before, she'd want to throw her hat into the ring to lead the Green Party of Canada - a party that she seems to have no history with. That lack of history came through a little today. Howard seemed a flummoxed and vague when discussing the Green Party in today's political climate - in a way that Haddad, Kuttner, Lascaris, Green and Murray weren't. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Howard came across as being very intelligent, and fairly engaging. She does speak well, and it's clear that she knows how to integrate data and evidence into the conversation. She struggled a little with some of the issues of the day that most of the other candidates really nailed. Generally speaking, though, I wasn't particularly impressed - but nor was I unimpressed. I'll have to keep watching, I suppose.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Judy Green</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I have to say, Green really impressed me. In this format, she was a bit of a stand-out - even among some of the more formidable leadership candidates. Green clearly knew her stuff, understands what the Green Party is, where it's come from, and where the Members seem to want to take it. She was charming, engaging and trying to cram as much as she could into the little time that she had. She was able to express her varied life experiences and relate to others while answering questions. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I think we all need to keep our eye on Green. She's got a little touch of Elizabeth May about her, mingled with a folksy Maritime charm. Could Green be the populist in this leadership contest? But a populist in the true sense of the word - someone with their finger on the pulse of the times. In a field riddled with laywers and policy wonks, Green is offering up something a little different.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Three Stand Outs</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Dimitri Lascaris</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I always feel the need to put this disclaimer in front of anything that I write about Dimitri Lascaris. I do not believe that Lascaris should be running for leader of the Green Party of Canada due to a number of serious matters in his past that really ought to have disqualified him. That the Party has greenlighted his leadership bid is a real problem, I believe, one that the Party is going to have to wrestle with at some point in the future. I'm not going to get into specifics here, as Lascaris' toxic backstory is easily found with a quick Google search.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">All of that said, even I have to say that Lascaris was one of the stand-outs of the day. That he found himself in a debate with some of the less-tested candidates (Howard, Perceval-Maxwell and West) may have helped him a little, but really Lascaris is a great speaker - and he himself has had a lot of practice at this sort of thing. If you didn't know much about Lascaris and just tuned into the TVO debate, no doubt you'd be wondering now about whether this is someone to be supporting.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Lascaris clearly has charisma and charm, and he knows how to engage with everyone - the moderator, other candidates, and with his audience (correct me if I'm wrong, but he was also the only contestant to do a land acknowledgement - something that there's really no excuse for any leadership contestant not to be doing first thing when they're given the floor to speak). Lascaris also really seemed to think quickly on his feet, and his rebuttal of West on the matter of what it means to be 'fiscally responsible' was probably the highlight of the day - and a serious showcase for Lascaris' talents. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>David Merner</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">What can I say about David Merner? This is twice now that Merner has proved to be the complete package: knowledgeable, empathetic, charming, engaging, considerate. There is really something about him that I am growing to like. It's clear that Merner has spent a lot of time connecting the dots, and thinking on his feet. He shows all of the qualities that a national party leader ought to show. It was all on display today. And although today's discussion was not particularly combative, I'm sure that Merner could mix it up with the best of them if push came to shove.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">I'm just going to leave it at that, after saying one last thing: I'm still not convinced I will vote for him, because I continue to feel that the Party would be best led by someone who is not an older straight white man. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><b>Glen Murray</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Equally engaging as Merner, and so clearly able to discuss politics and everything political, Murray has a depth of understanding based on his years of experience in the political realm. It is so clear to me that Murray possesses all of the leadership qualities one could ever hope for in a leader. And I am sure that if the Green Party elected Murray, our future would be in really good hands. I can already picture Murray on stage with Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh and Peter McKay - not just holding his own, but seriously dishing it out to all of those leaders. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">There's something very genuine and engaging about Murray too. It's not so much charm as it is, I don't know, gravitas. But that's not to suggest that he can't connect with people, because clearly he was able to do that in today's debate. Some of the candidates like Merner and Lascaris might approach him in this area, but it's clear to me that Murray is just on another level.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">But...today he completely lost my vote.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Look I know that I've said time and again that PR matters more than policy. But sometimes policy matters - and when it does, it really does. Today, Murray made it very clear that he would try to get the Party to abandon our long-standing Carbon Fee & Dividend policy in favour of something like his Ontario Cap & Trade program - which he continues to believe is more "efficient" with money and will lead to a larger reduction in emissions. Annamie Paul was right to point out to Murray that economists don't agree with him on this (like Sudbury's own Dr. David Robinson, Professor of Economics at Laurentian University, who wrote, </span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">"</span><a href="https://drdavidrobinsonsudbury.wordpress.com/2016/12/03/what-glenn-might-be-saying-if-he-understood/" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;" target="_blank">What Glen Might Be Saying if He Understood</a><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">," Dr. David Robinson, Economics for Northern Ontario, December 3 2016). </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">But Murray sure as hell didn't listen to those economists when the Ontario Liberals had their dog and pony show, er, province-wide public consultation sessions on carbon pricing back in 2016. At that time, the Liberals were overwhelmingly told to go with carbon fee & dividend. I don't know if it was through Murray's force of will or because of something else, but the Wynne Liberals opted instead to go with Cap & Trade - better than what Ontario had before (which was nothing), but absolutely not the program that is ever going to price carbon at a level that can be both economically sustainable and meaningful for emissions reduction. I wrote about the problems with Ontario's Cap and Trade program back in 2017 (see: </span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">"</span><a href="https://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/04/08/sudbury-column-cap-and-trade-doomed-to-fail/wcm/575d0636-75da-b777-8afb-743cdadf8eea" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;" target="_blank">Cap and trade doomed to fail</a><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">," Steve May, the Sudbury Star, April 8 2017). </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">And that Murray wants to push this now on the Green Party - a party that had this very conversation over a decade ago - sorry, that's just unacceptable. And frankly more than a little disrespectful. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Well, I guess by disqualifying himself from my list of "those whom I might support for leader", he's at least done me a favour today.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">(<i>opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-12848311409639447212020-06-21T22:00:00.001-04:002020-06-23T08:48:30.108-04:00Quick Impressions of the Fair Vote Canada - Green Party of Canada Leadership Debate<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I just wanted to take a moment to provide my first impressions of the Fair Vote Canada - Green Party of Canada Leadership Contestant "debate". I can't help but put the word "debate" in quotations, because really, it was anything but a debate. But that doesn't mean it wasn't useful as Greens get ready to case their ballots at the end of September for our next leadership candidate.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xj8Qz10Sp8Y/XvAQaxikZFI/AAAAAAAABKA/SNEDgzoST3cdx8BOXKhpc38pubzHq4S_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/e19dbc98-8776-43fd-8ec7-c78c4eb46446.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="1280" height="125" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xj8Qz10Sp8Y/XvAQaxikZFI/AAAAAAAABKA/SNEDgzoST3cdx8BOXKhpc38pubzHq4S_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/e19dbc98-8776-43fd-8ec7-c78c4eb46446.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<b style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">National Indigenous Peoples Day</b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">First, let me address the elephant in the room: Fair Vote Canada scheduled this debate on June 21st - which is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Without question, this was a completely tone-deaf move on Fair Vote Canada's part. Frankly, it should have never happened. While Fair Vote, the moderators, and especially the leadership contestants, all tried to address this situation, it still fell flat in my opinion. This was the wrong day to be having a discussion about democracy in Canada. In the future, if things like this happen again, it is my hope that the leadership contestants themselves have the courage to stand up to organizers and say, "Thanks, but No - we have to consider the greater good here". </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Look, I know that's not an easy thing for any leadership contestant to do. I'm reminded of a situation that happened here in Sudbury in 2008 at an all-candidates debate that was organized by a student group at a local highschool. During that debate, one of the candidates, and Independent, remarked that gay people should be rounded up and shot. The other candidates didn't quite know what to do. I'm sure that none of them supported this position, but rather than call out a fringe opponent - or do the right thing and walk off the stage so as not to be sharing a podium with the homophobe - they did nothing (including our Green Party candidate). But the people watching the debate did the right thing - they called out the candidate, they decided to leave the debate. Clearly, they didn't have any 'skin in the game' that might have left them questioning what was the smart thing to do - continue to engage in the debate because of the potential of securing a few votes? No, they left because it was the right thing to do. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">And that's why I have to fault all of the candidates who participated in tonight's debate - while also acknowledging that not participating would also have been a problem. But from where I sit, those that participated tonight all made a blunder - siding with doing what was expedient for their campaigns, versus doing what was right, moral and just.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">All of the 10 leadership contestants participate tonight except for Andrew West. It was not mentioned why West wasn't there - perhaps we will find out the explanation from West's campaign at some point. Also, Courtney Howard was not able to participate in person, and debate organizers indicated that it was because she was working. Howard did pre-record responses to a few questions, as well as opening and closing remarks. So 9 out of 10 opted to participate in this debate, held on National Indigenous Peoples Day. Shame.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>My Personal Winner</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">There were several candidates that did quite well, which didn't surprise me. For example, I've been following Glen Murray's career for some time now. The fact that he was able to provide meaty, cogent responses that differentiated himself from the other contestants in a thoughtful and deliberate way was absolutely no surprise to me. I believe that all Greens need to take a serious look at Murray - and even though he's an outsider to the Party, there's no question in my mind that he really should have been a Green a long time ago. As Minister of Environment and Climate Change in what was unquestionably the "greenest" government in Canada's history (under the leadership of former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne), and as former head of the Pembina Institute, Murray knows very well what Canada needs to do to get its act together to combat the challenges of climate change. So his performance in tonight's debate was no surprise to me. Frankly, there was really no one else who was able to step up onto the same plain as Murray - with one exception.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">And that exception was David Merner - and I'm going to pick David as my personal winner in tonight's debate. Holy cow, where did this guy come from (I ask knowing full well that Merner has been a political force for years now - first in the Liberal Party and most recently as a Green candidate in Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke, where he nearly won a seat in parliament in 2019). Merner came across as professional, responsible and completely in touch with the issues that are top-of-mind for so many today. His presentation was genuine, engaging and ready for prime-time in a way that frankly only former cabinet Minister Murray was able to compare to. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I can't say that Merner "won" the debate. Really, there weren't any winners (although there were a few losers - see below), but Merner, who has never been elected to anything, was a stand out for me, so I'm going to name him my personal winner.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Tonight's Losers</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">There were a few losers tonight - some bigger than others. Here are my top three:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Dylan Perceval-Maxwell</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">If anyone was seriously thinking of ranking Perceval-Maxwell as their first pick in the leadership contest (and frankly, other than his friends and family, I have my doubts anybody was considering this anyway), tonight he put on a display that was sure to convince Greens just not to bother. Entering the debate wearing a 19th Century-style top hat already made him look so far from the type of professional leader that the party needs now, it wasn't even funny. And his responses to questions were clearly not very well thought out or rehearsed. In short, if Dylan hasn't already raised the $20k needed to stay in the race, I sincerely hope he does not bother and saves himself some grief and heartache, because it was quite clear to anybody watching that he did not belong on this virtual stage with any of the other candidates.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Meryam Haddad</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I don't think that I was the only one that found Haddad to be a little offensive. She clearly has her own vision of what it means to be the leader of the Green Party of Canada - and frankly, about what the Green Party of Canada should be, in order to conform itself to her vision. Haddad is a proud socialist, and her responses to questions were clearly influenced by that. But unlike Dimitri Lascaris, who also self-identifies as being on the left-wing of the Party, Haddad just came across as too radical for the Green Party in a way that Lascaris didn't. It wasn't clear to me at all that Haddad had a decent understanding of what it meant to be a Green. What did come across is that Haddad, if she ever found herself to be a leader of the Party, would try to impose her will on the party over that of the membership.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Beyond that, Haddad proved to be a pretty ineffective communicator. There was a bitterness to her responses that was missing from all of the other candidates (save one). She seemed angry and oppositional - rather than someone who appeared willing to work with others. If you were considering Haddad because you support the ecosocialist side of the party, I think that it's pretty clear that Lascaris made a far better impression tonight. Although I will never suggest to any Green that they should ever cast a ballot for Lascaris, given some of the public statements he has made over the years that are just so deeply problematic.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I think Greens just need to give Meryam Haddad a pass.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Amita Kuttner</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Tonight's biggest disappointment for me was Amita Kuttner. This is a candidate that I really want to like. I've been following them for some time now, and I really like what they have to say. They've clearly positioned themselves to be on the progressive side of politics, and have a pretty good understanding of what it means to be Green. So this "quick impression" isn't based on their approach to policy or anything like that. It's completely about personality and their ability to represent the Party as leader - which the Constitution defines as being a "spokesperson for the Party".</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Kuttner just seemed angry and pissed off throughout the night. There was barely a smile. There was no engagement with anybody - moderators, fellow contestants - that let the real Kuttner shine through. Instead, we ended up with a scowling leadership contestant who appeared more than mildly irritated with the state of the world. And this is exactly not the sort of "leader" aka "salesperson" that the Party needs right now. Kuttner was clearly out of place on tonight's stage, doing little better than Perceval-Maxwell to convince voters to give them a try. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">And this isn't unusual for Kuttner. Recently, they released a video about how they would not be accepting the Party's equity-seeking special provisions for the leadership race. The message was a good one, I suppose - but the messenger was problematic for the same reasons: Kuttner just appeared to be pissed off, carrying around a giant chip on their shoulder. And that's not at all what the Green Party needs right now if we're going to attract new voters and win new seats.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Dr. Courtney Howard</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">This isn't a knock on Howard's pre-recorded responses (although they were quite unmemorable), but rather on Howard's absence. Frankly, I don't care whether one has to work or not, if you're going to bail on leadership debate, at least do it for the right reasons (like, "National Aboriginal Day - you can't be serious!"). I get that Howard probably has a pretty important job - but you know what? I took the time tonight, as did many other Greens, to tune in to see the leadership debate. And Howard couldn't be bothered. Sorry, being the leader of the Green Party is also a very important job. So Howard is my biggest loser of tonight's debate.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Strong Second Tier Performances</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Without question, going into tonight's debate, Merner, Murray and Paul have to be the odds-on favorites to win the contest. Each of these candidates have a strong team in place, and are raising a lot of money - doing the sorts of things that you have to do if you want to win the race.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">But tonight's debate left me with the impression that there is a strong second tier of candidates that perhaps Greens should not overlook when it comes. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Judy Green</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Green had a solid performance. She was able to remind Greens that she is coming from a different place, having served in the armed forces, and being from the Maritimes. Greens ought not to count Green out of the race, as she is the only candidate from Atlantic Canada, and if she plays her cards right, she could yet end up as a bit of a force in the contest. She certainly has a great grasp of party policy, and she's fairly personable. I'd likt to see more of her personality shine through in the same way that those who have attended one of her virtual "Kitchen Parties" have seen. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Dimitri Lascaris</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Those who follow me on social media know very well that I am no fan at all of Dimitri Lascaris, and I sincerely wish he was not in the leadership contest. That said, there is little to fault Lascaris for in tonight's leadership debate, so I'll have to give him well-deserved kudos. Lascaris came across as a personable and knowledgeable - while offering a viewpoint that was slightly different than the status quo candidates. Say what you want about Lascaris, he is clearly in touch with the zeitgeist of today. And given that he has his own little power group in the Party - well, no, it probably doesn't matter, because most still aren't going to give Lascaris their preferences, no matter how well he comes across in debates like tonight's.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Ranking</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Here is my ranking of the leadership contestants' performance in tonight's debate. This is not representative of my own personal feelings towards the candidates, or what I feel their electoral chances are in general. This was just about tonight:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">1) David Merner</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">2) Glen Murray</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">3) Annamie Paul</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">4) Judy Green</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">5) Dimitri Lascaris</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">6) Meryam Haddad</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">7) Amita Kuttner</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">8) Dylan Perceval-Maxwell</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">9) Courtney Howard</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>One Last Thing...</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Who out there watching tonight's debate wasn't thinking this very thought: it's too bad that Elizabeth May stepped down as leader. She exudes charisma, charm, knowledge and political acumen with everything she says and does. And tonight was no exception. May absolutely shone in her role of co-moderator with former Party leader Jim Harris (who was also very good). I tell you this - if I had my druthers, I would surely like to see May lead the Party into the next election. I know that's not going to happen - but it was pretty clear to me tonight that even with the excellent tier-one candidates that we have in this party, no one - and I mean NO ONE - can hold a candle to Elizabeth May.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<i style="background-color: #f7f0e9; color: #4b6320;"><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</span></i></div>
</div>
Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-8113905281860922502020-02-27T19:40:00.000-05:002020-02-28T09:14:25.824-05:00The Disappearing Green Party<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">With massive disruptions taking place across Canada in solidarity with Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, it may seem a little trite for me to sit down and write a critique of the Green Party - a party that I've been a member of for over 12 years now. Surely there are better things that I could spend my time writing about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">And yet, it's because Canada is experiencing these disruptions that writing about the Green Party is prescient - or rather, writing about how the Green Party has figured out a way to absent itself from the national discussions which are taking place in government, in the mainstream media, on social media, and even at the Tim Horton's here right in downtown Sudbury. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eJW6pecnat0/XlhcsFKqHRI/AAAAAAAABHA/cuntpZy1UIwpsT_zBxVmQeBTyquLHJJDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Disappearing%2BGreen%2BParty.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="431" data-original-width="741" height="186" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eJW6pecnat0/XlhcsFKqHRI/AAAAAAAABHA/cuntpZy1UIwpsT_zBxVmQeBTyquLHJJDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Disappearing%2BGreen%2BParty.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Disappearing Green Party</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">For all intents and purposes, the Green Party has disappeared. And not just with regards to the Wet'suwet'en - but on just about every major issue of our times. OK, sure, Elizabeth May had something good to say about rejecting Teck a little while back (see: "<a href="http://elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/2020/01/27/elizabeth-may-calls-on-the-government-to-reject-the-teck-frontier-mine/" target="_blank">Elizabeth May calls on the government to reject the Teck Frontier mine</a>," Elizabeth May MP, January 27, 2020), and this piece on the soaring costs of the Trans Mountain pipeline was pretty good (see: "<a href="http://elizabethmaymp.ca/publications/2020/02/14/elizabeth-may-asks-at-what-cost-canada/" target="_blank">Elizabeth May asks, ‘At what cost, Canada?</a>’ Elizabeth May MP, February 14, 2020 - </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">and it's also available at the <a href="https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/02/12/opinion/elizabeth-may-asks-what-cost-canada" target="_blank">National Observer</a> so long as you don't view more than 7 of their posts a month). and I know that Paul Manly and the Green Party apparatus have been busy tweeting about land defenders, pipelines, uhm, indigenous rights, pipelines, and I think pipelines. So yes, people are busy. But is anyone noticing?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I frequent the <a href="https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/" target="_blank">National Newswatch</a> news aggregator website. I don't always have a chance to read everything that's linked there, but I tend to get a good feel for what's making the news just by reading the headlines. It's kind of like a barometer for figuring out what stories are important to the mainstream media. It's fun to watch as stories I've been following through other media start to percolate in the MSM sometimes days or weeks after they've broke elsewhere. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">In the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, the Green Party was getting some serious (well, "serious" for the Green Party) coverage in the mainstream media. News stories and columnists were taking the time to write about a good number of different things related to the Party, Elizabeth May, and provincial Green parties. With two weeks to go in the election, though, coverage of the Green Party dried up. It sputtered on and off again (mostly off) for another month or so. And after Elizabeth May made it known that she was stepping down as leader of the Party, coverage just vanished.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>The Elizabeth May Party</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">What good is a political party that no one is talking about? Sure, the Green Party of Canada is going through a bit of a renewal at the moment. And by "renewal" I mean I'm seeing and hearing about long-time committed Greens like myself either openly questioning whether they should continue on with the Party, or are just leaving, packing it in. The 2019 election sure as hell left a pack of disillusioned members behind. </span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xm4v-s_mJ0w/XlhbtgwvN9I/AAAAAAAABG0/NjP2JZ5dEC4pxxlf7L7mP7zb6EralAhgQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/a-man-and-a-woman-sitting-on-a-couch-canada-s-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-greets-swedish-climate-c_816851_-780x405.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="780" height="166" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xm4v-s_mJ0w/XlhbtgwvN9I/AAAAAAAABG0/NjP2JZ5dEC4pxxlf7L7mP7zb6EralAhgQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/a-man-and-a-woman-sitting-on-a-couch-canada-s-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-greets-swedish-climate-c_816851_-780x405.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Greta Thunberg</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">For those keeping score, that would be the fourth general election now where the Party anticipated a serious breakthrough but failed to deliver. Arguably, the electoral dynamics in 2019 were the best we've ever seen: a lacklustre Liberal Party trying to hold on to the reins of government; the NDP a sinking ship; and the Conservative Party doing all that it can to alienate what remains of the progressive political right. With climate strikes going on around the globe, with Greta Thunberg telling centrist politicos that they weren't doing enough, and with the mainstream media talking up the Green Party in a way that it never has before, it should have been fairly easy to elect a handful of Greens to parliament.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">But instead, we stunk out the joint. We released policies that committed us to supporting new fossil fuel infrastructure - maybe as an attempt to get a few votes from Alberta (because seriously, there was no other reason for our refinery policy to ever have seen the light of day in an election - much less as part of a <a href="https://www.greenparty.ca/en/mission-possible" target="_blank">20-step plan</a> to fight climate change. We welcomed former NDP candidates into the party, despite many of those candidates never having agreed to join the party (see: "</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/5862100/ndp-green-party-new-brunswick/" target="_blank">Some former NDP candidates in N.B. say they weren’t part of exodus to Greens</a>," Global News, September 5, 2019). And then we got embroiled in a discussion about whether those candidates were racists.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XWmcbOk8ar8/XlheeuJEQiI/AAAAAAAABHU/gJfi3EgtJEcADWyn5AlTzy-fAs6Ye3DQwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DOMDKVOVVRHU5FKWHU4Z6HAWOQ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="620" height="198" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XWmcbOk8ar8/XlheeuJEQiI/AAAAAAAABHU/gJfi3EgtJEcADWyn5AlTzy-fAs6Ye3DQwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/DOMDKVOVVRHU5FKWHU4Z6HAWOQ.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Federal Leaders Trainwreck Debate</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Elizabeth May just didn't seem to have fire in her belly the same way that she did in previous elections. While she had a pretty good debate performance that no one saw at the Macleans National Leader's Debate, she still took a hit from the NDP's Jagmeet Singh, who rightly questioned why she would continue to trot out the idea of having SNC Lavalin pay for water systems on First Nations reserves. Unfortunately, May was all but invisible in the horrendous nationally televised English-language trainwreck "debate". </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">And it would have been nice had May maybe not brought up the fact that, as Leader of the Green Party, she doesn't actually have the authority to tell other Greens in her caucus what they can and can't bring forward as private members bills - so if someone ever wanted to limit a woman's right to choose, while May was clear she'd oppose that bill, as Leader she couldn't kill it. That kind of nuance did not go over well with the mainstream media, and it gave the NDP ammunition to convincingly make stuff up about the Green Party's and May's commitment to women's issues. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>The Green Party Has Lost Its Way</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mYec9g76JYs/Xlhd-fJApiI/AAAAAAAABHM/oWOS3xgHdVIicwO7IvzsA_iR0VIYa4b9QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/green-cup-combo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="228" data-original-width="302" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mYec9g76JYs/Xlhd-fJApiI/AAAAAAAABHM/oWOS3xgHdVIicwO7IvzsA_iR0VIYa4b9QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/green-cup-combo.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That damn cup.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">May can't take the fault for the Green Party's lacklustre performance in the last election. Or at least Greens aren't going to blame her. What most engaged Greens have been complaining to one another about for the past few months hasn't been May - it's about how the Party has lost its way. This was exemplified in the election by the infamous coffee cup episode, where a backroom staffer fiddled with a photo of May holding - well, originally holding a coffee cup, but the cup was photoshopped out in favour of a reuseable mug. Thing was, the coffee cup that got photoshopped out was actually a biodegradable cup (see: "<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mbm9a3/green-party-leader-photoshopped-with-fake-reusable-cup-and-straw" target="_blank">Green Party Leader Photoshopped With Fake Reusable Cup and Straw</a>," Vice News, September 24, 2019). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So much for doing politics differently.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">All in all, May and the Green Party spent a lot more time during the 2019 election explaining themselves to the media, rather than talking about the issues. Granted, discussions about actual issues by all political parties were noticeably absent during the 2019 election. But as Ronald Reagan once said about something or other, "If you're explaining, you're losing." When all of your media oxygen is taken up trying to convince the media that you're not a racist or anti-choice or that you don't go around photoshopping every picture you can get your hands on - well you're losing. And we lost. Big-time.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w1VfvjUX0Ds/XlhfPZ8JaKI/AAAAAAAABHg/cO4wZeRlLQcwPDNdGqzxbtRJGd43tiVrwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GPC%2Bwe%2Bdid%2Bit.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="698" data-original-width="699" height="199" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w1VfvjUX0Ds/XlhfPZ8JaKI/AAAAAAAABHg/cO4wZeRlLQcwPDNdGqzxbtRJGd43tiVrwCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/GPC%2Bwe%2Bdid%2Bit.JPG" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">We sure did do it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Or did we? The Party initially tried to spin the fact that we elected 3 Green MP's as some sort of huge victory. Either that didn't go over well with Greens like me who have been paying attention and were expecting a few more in the "win" column in 2019, or the disappearance of the Party and its growing irrelevancy since about mid-November led the spin-doctors to call it a day. Clearly, 2019 was no victory for the party.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Leadership Contest</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b7B3Sl76LNI/XlhgdDdXjXI/AAAAAAAABHs/U-oEHbtVYzwduBDgEgoYnt527agYfrkbgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/alex%2Btyrrell%2Bin%2Ba%2Bcanoe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="150" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b7B3Sl76LNI/XlhgdDdXjXI/AAAAAAAABHs/U-oEHbtVYzwduBDgEgoYnt527agYfrkbgCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/alex%2Btyrrell%2Bin%2Ba%2Bcanoe.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Alex Tyrrell in a canoe.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">With May's departure as leader in early November, the "race" to replace her was on! Almost immediately</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">, Green Party of Quebec leader Alex Tyrrell announced that he was going to throw his hat in the ring </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">(well, actually he announced his intention to replace May even before May resigned - see: "<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/green-party-elizabeth-may-alex-tyrrell-leadership-race-1.5346324" target="_blank">Quebec's Green Party leader eyeing federal job if Elizabeth May steps down</a>," CBC News, November 3, 2020</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. For a few days in early November, Tyrrell got his name in the news. But since then there has been little but silence in the mainstream media about the Green leadership contest (even though Alex has now released what has to be standard gear for any national political party leadership aspirant - a photo of themselves alone in a canoe).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Now I know it might not be fair to contrast the Green Party's leadership contest with that of the Conservative Party - especially in terms of coverage given the two parties by the media. But at the same time, I just can't help but notice that every day, a Conservative leadership candidate is making national headlines. Sure, they're not always positive headlines. And ok, so the Cons have 121 seats to our 3. And they've got gobs of money. And they've got former cabinet ministers vying for the top spot. And - well, let's just say that they seem to have their act together, at least when it comes to the contest itself - even though Andrew Scheer stepped down as leader over a month after May resigned. And Scheer has stayed on as interim leader, hogging some of those headlines (er, again, often not in a good way), whereas May has handed the reins of the Green Party over to interim leader Jo-Ann Roberts whom no one has ever heard of (at least not in the context of being the interim leader of the Green Party).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Today was the deadline for leadership contestants to clear the first hurdle of the Conservative Party's nomination process. The Cons have been right eager to elect a new leader (and with Andrew Scheer staying at their helm until a new one is elected, who can blame them?). But the Green Party has decided to take a more leisurely approach - I guess because we're not going to have to struggle with getting our new leader's name out there to the public before the next election. Who knows. Anyway, the same day that May stepped down, the Party announced that the leadership contest would take place in Charlottetown, on October 3, 2020 - 11 months away.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>No bodies and Nobodies</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Here's what I have to say about an 11 month leadership contest. It's probably the right amount of time for the Green Party to pick a new leader - although I can see why the Conservatives decided to compress their contest into a much shorter timeframe given that we are in a minority government situation. But the real think about the Green Party's 11 month leadership contest is that it isn't. Isn't 11 months, I mean. The Party only got around to releasing the Rules for the contest on February 3, 2020 - leaving just 8 months for contestants to campaign (see: "<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-leadership-1.5449687" target="_blank">Green Party leadership race officially launches today in P.E.I.</a>" CBC News, February 3, 2020) and to raise the $50,000 entry fee.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">That's right. You want to be leader of the Green Party, you've got to pony up $50k. Oh, not all at once, though. There's a staggered submission process.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ucNfrCimVqE/XlhTmm2nyxI/AAAAAAAABGU/ZmvIXB67HHUK82lAs0KMTQvKFPyxl6nPACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/GPC-leadership%2Bfees.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="670" height="151" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ucNfrCimVqE/XlhTmm2nyxI/AAAAAAAABGU/ZmvIXB67HHUK82lAs0KMTQvKFPyxl6nPACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/GPC-leadership%2Bfees.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">GPC Leadership Contest Rules - Section 11</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Potential leadership contestants have until June 3rd to apply. So we'll know in another few months exactly who has thrown their hat in the ring - just as the mainstream media is taking off for the summer. Good luck to all of the leadership candidates getting their names out there to Party members via the mainstream media!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Ah, but who am I kidding? The mainstream media wasn't going to be paying any attention to this leadership contest anyway. Why would they waste their time reporting on the Green Party now when they haven't wasted their time reporting on the Green Party since the election? At least people have heard of Elizabeth May - she still commands a bit of a media following, despite no longer leading the Party. But - this is not to denigrate those who have currently expressed interest in the Green Party's leadership - why would the media write about any of the would-be leaders? It's not like Green Party members have expressed any degree of excitement about them, so why should the media?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Especially since it's not clear that any of them are going to be able to raise the $50 grand needed to officially register as a candidate. This might be the leadership contest where the only bodies anyone could find to run were nobodies.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Alternatives?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Could there be others waiting in the wings to announce their candidacy? God, I hope so. It's not that those who have signaled interest would make bad candidates, it's just that nobody's ever heard of them, and I fear that the Green Party is going to spend years in the wilderness trying to build up a little name recognition. I get that the Green Party is not a leader-driven Party in the same way that the old-line parties are, but I will say that until the media figures out how to report on the Green Party (should they ever show any interest in doing so again), it's important that our leader at least be known by, oh, maybe 1% of 1% of Canadians.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">If a big name doesn't step forward to lead our Party, I can't help but think that our Party is going to remain invisible throughout 2020 - and maybe into 2030. And I don't know that I've got the appetite to stick around and build (rebuild?) the Party with the hopes that one day we might elect enough Greens to actually be able to influence something that's important to us. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">I've been of the opinion for some time now that the Green Party ought to seriously consider merging with the NDP, because our two parties are not actually all that far apart on the issues (see: "<a href="https://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2019/05/is-this-all-that-stands-in-way-of-ndp.html" target="_blank">Is This All That Stands in the Way of NDP-Green Electoral Co-operation?</a>" Sudbury Steve May, May 14, 2019).</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> It had been my hope that at least one leadership contestant might grab ahold of that idea and run with it. But no one is going to pay $50k to try to merge it with the New Democrats.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">If a merger wasn't going to be a thing, I've expounded on the need to recruit a household name as leader (see: "Who Will Be The Next Leader of the Green Party?" Sudbury Steve May, November 5, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. I offered up former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne - but I presume that she remains otherwise engaged. I suggested maybe Rick Mercer or Pamela Anderson - but I suspect that they might have other things on the go, too </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">(see: "</span><a href="https://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2019/11/ok-greens-where-do-we-go-from-here.html" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;" target="_blank">OK Greens, Where Do We Go From Here?</a><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">" Sudbury Steve May, November 13, 2019). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R0KiVRYc1xc/XlhapBHmUII/AAAAAAAABGg/2XbuBx_xzM8Cs0zwWOj0IDKpbgqCj63XwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/glen%2Bmurray-twitter.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="468" data-original-width="662" height="226" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R0KiVRYc1xc/XlhapBHmUII/AAAAAAAABGg/2XbuBx_xzM8Cs0zwWOj0IDKpbgqCj63XwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/glen%2Bmurray-twitter.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Glen Murray on Twitter</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><b>Who Can Save Us?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">So who does that leave? I've been watching with interest the recent tweeting habits of Glen Murray, Ontario's former Minister of the Environment and the former Mayor of Winnipeg. His tweets have stirred a slight flutter in my curiosity. But I don't think we Greens can count on that former Ontario Liberal to ride in and try to save the day. So who really does that leave?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">In all seriousness, I'd like to offer up one final suggestion - even though I suspect the chances of her going for it are slim to none. But she does have a seat in parliament, and she commands a degree of respect from the media. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">You know I'm talking about Elizabeth May.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0YoYdrBh-mo/XlhbKTTn4ZI/AAAAAAAABGo/IwhZvqSiwbkJ1L6H8PRhxZqjgR3paeq0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/elizabeth-may1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="309" data-original-width="412" height="150" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0YoYdrBh-mo/XlhbKTTn4ZI/AAAAAAAABGo/IwhZvqSiwbkJ1L6H8PRhxZqjgR3paeq0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s200/elizabeth-may1.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yes, Elizabeth May.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">And why wouldn't I be? Faced with what might be (yet even more) years in the political wilderness, and with a minority government situation that could send us to the polls on a moment's notice, why not turn back to May? She certainly has the capacity to turn our party opaque from its present invisible status.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Think about it: if May ran, she would win. You know it's true. And that says a little something about the Green Party of Canada that some don't want to hear.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-55386733423275207582020-02-22T22:46:00.000-05:002020-02-24T12:46:58.608-05:00Teck Decision Could be an Existential One for Canada’s Liberals<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">This month, Canada’s Liberal government is faced with what might be an existential decision. Vancouver-based mining giant Teck Resources needs federal cabinet’s approval for a new open-pit bitumen mine in Northern Alberta which is expected to generate 6 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually until the year 2067 (see: “<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/story/28683/behind-the-headlines-5-need-to-know-facts-about-the-teck-frontier-mine/" target="_blank">Behind the headlines: 6 need-to-know facts about the Teck Frontier mine</a>,” Jesse Firempong, Greenpeace Canada, February 3, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. For Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, having campaigned twice now on getting serious about climate change, approval of Teck’s Frontier mine could lead to a caucus revolt (see: </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://theenergymix.com/2020/02/07/teck-mine-a-pretty-easy-no-liberal-mps-tell-trudeau-in-raucous-caucus-meeting/" target="_blank">Teck Mine a ‘pretty easy no’, Liberal MPS tell Trudeau in raucous caucus meeting</a>,” the Energy Mix, February 7, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. With citizens from coast to coast to coast already protesting in the streets in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en, a federal decision to build yet more fossil fuel infrastructure on the basis of a questionable review process would certainly kill any last shred of climate legitimacy the Liberals might still be clinging to (see: </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-regardless-of-the-decision-teck-frontier-proves-the-system-is-still/" target="_blank">Regardless of the decision, Teck Frontier proves the system is still broken</a>,” Simon Dyer, the Globe and Mail, February 12, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Teck’s cheerleaders, like Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and former Liberal Minister of Natural Resources Amarjeet Sohi, are keen to point out that greenhouse gas emissions can be accommodated under Alberta’s 100 megatonne emissions cap, first put in place by former NDP Premier Rachel Notley (see: “<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/david-staples-sohi-solution-can-give-trudeau-and-kenney-the-win-win-on-frontier-oilsands-mine-that-canada-needs/ar-BBZvJPg" target="_blank">Sohi solution can give Trudeau and Kenney the win-win on Frontier oilsands mine that Canada needs</a>,” David Staples, the Edmonton Journal, January 31, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. However, Alberta’s cap on tar sands emissions has never been integrated into a coherent national plan to reduce emissions (see: </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://edmontonjournal.com/business/energy/opinion-albertas-climate-plan-stands-in-the-way-of-canadas" target="_blank">Alberta's climate plan stands in the way of Canada's</a>,” Gordon Laxer, the Edmonton Journal, December 3, 2015)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. After 5 years in power, the lack of a serious national plan to achieve even former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s weak and ineffectual emissions reduction target for 2030 is a national embarrassment (see: </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://canadians.org/blog/trudeau-set-break-its-promise-meet-even-harpers-weak-carbon-emissions-reduction-target" target="_blank">Trudeau set to break its promise to meet even Harper's weak carbon-emissions reduction target</a>,” The Council of Canadians, March 29, 2017)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Alberta’s CO2 equivalent emissions are about 65 tonnes per capita, compared to the average for the remainder of Canada at just 15 tonnes (see: “<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/story/28683/behind-the-headlines-5-need-to-know-facts-about-the-teck-frontier-mine/" target="_blank">Behind the headlines: 6 need-to-know facts about the Teck Frontier mine</a>,” Jesse Firempong, Greenpeace Canada, February 3, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. If Alberta’s tar sands emissions climb to 100 megatonnes, other provinces, like Ontario, will have to do more than their fair share in compensate (see: </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://skepticalscience.com/Albertacarbontax.html" target="_blank">Alberta’s new carbon tax</a>,” Andy Skuce, Skeptical Science, December 31, 2015)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. The Frontier mine alone, if built, would become the 5th largest greenhouse gas emitter in the nation. With new mining ventures in northern Ontario needed to produce the mineral resources to power the green economy, what might our province have to give up in order to allow Alberta to keep pumping high-emissions energy for yesterday’s marketplace? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">However, if projects like the government-owned Trans Mountain bitumen pipeline are going to at least pretend to be economically viable, a higher level of extraction from an expanded tar sands is necessary. Cost estimates for Trans Mountain have ballooned to $16 billion (see: “<a href="http://elizabethmaymp.ca/publications/2020/02/14/elizabeth-may-asks-at-what-cost-canada/" target="_blank">Elizabeth May asks, ‘At what cost, Canada?’</a>” Elizabeth May MPP, February 14, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau might think it would be a shame to spend all of that money on a pipeline, but have nothing to fill it with. With the job-producing green economy taking off globally, how much taxpayer money is going to have to further subsidize Canada’s fossil fuel sector to keep up appearances of competitiveness?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">The Frontier mine simply can’t proceed. The only sensible decision for the Liberals is to reject Teck, and to finally develop a truly national plan to do what’s necessary to begin tackling the climate emergency. That plan will be based on serious emissions reduction targets and provide for realistic provincial carbon budgets. It must include plans for a just transition for fossil fuel workers. It will end subsidies to the fossil fuel sector. And it will include a roadmap for a bold transition to the green economy, including winding down fossil fuel production over the next several decades (see: “<a href="https://www.pembina.org/pub/business-climate-letter" target="_blank">A strong climate plan is key to Canada’s economic prosperity</a>,” Pembina Institute, October 8, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">It’s the sort of plan that the Liberals should have been working on over the last 5 years, after climate obstructionist Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were ousted by voters at the ballot box. It’s what Trudeau promised Canadians while on the campaign trail – in 2015 and again in 2019. Liberals should keep in mind Canadian’s opinions on climate change have shifted massively over the past decade, with polls showing voters having little appetite for inaction. The decision on Teck could very well be a defining moment for Canada’s Liberal government – and for the Liberal Party.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Originally published online and in print as, "<a href="https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/may-teck-decision-an-existential-one-for-canadas-liberals" target="_blank">May: Teck decision an existential one for Canada’s Liberals</a></span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">," at the Sudbury Star, Saturday February 22, 2020 - without hyperlinks.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-14895955691487597962020-01-27T19:15:00.000-05:002020-01-27T19:15:08.573-05:00No New Airport in Pickering In a Time of Climate Crisis<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Could 2020 be the year that the federal government decides once and for all that building a new airport northeast of Toronto is simply not compatible with achieving Canada’s climate targets? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">The Pickering airport has long been a political football, punted down the road by every government of the day since it was first announced in 1972. At that time, it was believed that a new international airport was needed to address capacity issues. Farms, businesses and two whole villages were expropriated by the federal government in the early 1970s to make way for the airport’s grand opening, scheduled for 1979. But over 45 years later, with air travel rates in the Greater Toronto Area never having lived up to expectations, those lands remain vacant (see: "<a href="https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/32633/pickering-airport-land-over-landings/" target="_blank">Pickering airport? Time to hit reset</a>,” International Airport Review, March 1, 2017)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">In May, 2019, the aviation sector’s consultant, KPMG, submitted an assessment report to Transport Canada that many believe lays the groundwork for the federal government to greenlight the project (see: "<a href="https://oshawaexpress.ca/new-year-sparks-renewed-interest-in-pickering-airport/" target="_blank">New year sparks renewed interest in Pickering Airport</a>,” the Oshawa Express, January 14, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">. However, just a month later, the House of Commons passed a motion declaring a national climate emergency (see: "</span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-emergency-motion-1.5179802" target="_blank">House of Commons declares a climate emergency ahead of pipeline decision</a>,” CBC News, June 18, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">. Constructing new aviation infrastructure like the Pickering Airport is seen by many as incompatible with achieving Canada’s long-term emissions reductions targets.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Air travel generally produces more greenhouse gas emissions per traveled kilometre than just about any other form of transportation. And unlike road and rail transport, the technology doesn’t yet exist for wide-scale electrification. While jet fuel efficiency has helped reduce net emission per flight, the incredible growth of air travel has seen emissions grow by over 80% since 1990 (see: "<a href="https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/air-travel-climate-change/" target="_blank">Air travel and climate change</a>,” David Suzuki Foundation, October 5, 2017)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">. Air travel now represent about 2.5% of all global emissions, thanks to cheap passenger fares and the rise of online shopping (see: "</span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pickering-airport-2020-update-1.5402994" target="_blank">After decades in limbo, 2020 could be a critical year for the Pickering Airport</a>,” CBC News, January 3, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">A growing awareness of the out-sized impacts that air travel has on global climate has led to a phenomenon known as “flygskam” or “flight shaming”. Some European air carriers are citing this growing environmental awareness for a decline in domestic air travel rates (see: "<a href="https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-thunberg-climate-change-flying-airline" target="_blank">Air travel is a huge contributor to climate change. A new global movement wants you to be ashamed to fly</a>.” Vox, November 30, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">. As consumers continue to connect the dots between rising temperatures and air travel, where alternatives to flying are available, the trend toward ‘slow travel’ is expected to continue (see: "</span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canadian-airlines-feel-the-pressure-of-flight-shaming-and-the-greta-effect-1.4774118" target="_blank">Canadian airlines feel the pressure of flight-shaming and the 'Greta effect'</a>,” CTV News, January 19, 2020).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">As difficult as it is true, growth in the global aviation sector is simply not compatible with holding global heating to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius as Canada and almost every other nation in the world has committed to doing. This commitment requires a complete rethink of how passengers and freight are going to move between locations, and how governments invest in transportation infrastructure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">This need to rethink transportation priorities provides our federal government with an exit strategy for the Pickering airport. Land Over Landings, a local activist organization fighting to protect prime farmland and watersheds in Durham Region from unnecessary airport development, has been keen to point this out to local governments and Transport Canada. They’ve been working at the local level with other citizens groups towards getting their regional government to acknowledge the climate crisis (see: "<a href="https://landoverlandings.com/durhams-climate-change-emergency-declaration/" target="_blank">Durham’s Climate Change Emergency Declaration</a>,” Land Over Landings, January 17, 2020)</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">, as so many others have already done, including Greater Sudbury’s. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">With polls showing a growing public awareness of the climate crisis among all Canadians, politicians and decision-makers at all levels of government would do well to listen to activist groups like Land Over Landings (see: "<a href="https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/123286" target="_blank">Durham Region taking action on climate change</a>,” Durham RadioNews.com, December 9, 2019).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">No one is suggesting that it would be prudent to close down Canada’s aviation sector. Vulnerable citizens, many of whom live in remote areas, rely on air travel. With an historic lack of investment in other forms of lower-carbon transport, like bus and rail, alternatives to flying can be expensive or non-existent. But with the climate crisis upon us, it’s unacceptable to invest in new infrastructure that locks us in to growing our emissions at a time when we must start shrinking them.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">Originally published online and in print as, "May: No new airport in Pickering in a time of climate crisis</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">," at the Sudbury Star, Saturday January 24, 2020 - without hyperlinks.</span></div>
</div>
Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-67349147301799022412019-12-23T06:50:00.000-05:002019-12-23T11:34:03.799-05:00Implementing UNDRIP will Fundamentally Change Canada For the Better<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">What we call “Canada” is about to change. In the recent speech from the Throne, Prime Minister Trudeau’s government promised to introduce legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (see: “<a href="https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/liberals-promise-to-table-undrip-law-within-one-year/" target="_blank">Liberals promise to table UNDRIP law within one year</a>,” the Nunatsiaq News, December 6, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. This will fundamentally alter the legal, institutional and political systems that have long tilted the balance of power away from indigenous communities, and to the benefit of settlers and the Crown.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">We’ve already started to rebalance the relationship between indigenous peoples who have always been here and the settler state that imposed itself upon them. We’ve begun to finally recognize that Canada is a colonial nation, founded and built upon racist principles of cultural superiority, to the detriment of indigenous communities and culture. We are starting to come to terms with the role that institutional racism has played in the history of our country, and how it continues to impact our laws, policies and programs today. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">UNDRIP explodes several of the foundational assumptions that underly the creation of Canada as a nation-state. The Declaration calls for the repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery (see: “<a href="https://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/18-01-22-Dismantling-the-Doctrine-of-Discovery-EN.pdf" target="_blank">Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery</a>,” The Assembly of Frist Nations, January 2018) </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">and the Doctrine of </span><i style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">terra nullius</i><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">, which together gave rise to the concept that European Kings had the exclusive jurisdiction over ‘discovered’ lands – despite the presence of indigenous inhabitants (see: </span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://www.oktlaw.com/ditching-doctrine-discovery-means-canadian-law/" target="_blank">Ditching the doctrine of discovery (and what that means for Canadian law)</a>,” Senwung Luk, Olthuis Kleer Townshed – LLP (undated))</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">King George III set out how the North American continent was to be settled by Europeans in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 – which many legal scholars cite as the genesis for the concept of ‘aboriginal title’ and ‘aboriginal rights’ that are now protected in our Constitution as per the Supreme Court. The Proclamation established a monopoly over indigenous lands for the benefit of British Crown (it’s where the term “Crown Lands” is derived from). Although the Proclamation required treaties between the Crown and First Nations prior to taking land and resources, it was nevertheless developed in absence of indigenous input and cultural practices. Historically, the Proclamation has been unevenly implemented – to say the least (see: "<a href="https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/royal_proclamation_1763/" target="_blank">Royal Proclamation, 1763</a>," indigenous foundations.arts.ubc.ca (undated)).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">British Columbia has already legislated the implementation of UNDRIP (see: "<a href="https://www.oktlaw.com/bc-bill-41-a-promising-start-to-implementing-undrip/" target="_blank">BC Bill 41: A Promising Start to Implementing UNDRIP</a>,” Larry Innes, Matt McPherson and Oliver MacLaren, Olthuis Kleer Townshed – LLP (undated))</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">, and the Northwest Territories is about to do the same (see: "</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">“<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/implementing-undrip-bc-nwt-1.5344825" target="_blank">What does 'implementing UNDRIP' actually mean?</a>” CBC News, November 2, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. With Canada poised to follow suit, it won’t be too much longer before all Crown governments (hello, Ontario!) are forced to confront their own colonial legacies and determine how best to structure a framework for future reconciliation and decolonization. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">These changes to Canada’s underlying structures will create challenges for our national and provincial governments. One significant challenge is sure to involve the development of non-renewable resources (see: "<a href="https://www.oktlaw.com/aboriginal-rights-conservation-canadas-future-far-reaching-implications-tsilhqotin-case/" target="_blank">Aboriginal rights, conservation and Canada’s future – the far reaching implications of the Tsilhqot’in case</a>,” Larry Innes, Olthuis Kleer Townshed – LLP (undated)).</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"> UNDRIP requires the ‘free and prior informed consent’ of indigenous peoples when new resource development projects are being considered. That’s a higher standard than the ‘duty to consult and accommodate’ established by the Supreme Court – a standard that the government of Canada failed to meet when it approved the Northern Gateway pipeline project (see: "</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/federal-court-overturns-ottawas-approval-of-northern-gateway-pipeline/article30703563/" target="_blank">Court overturns Ottawa’s approval of Northern Gateway pipeline</a>,” The Globe and Mail, June 30, 2016)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">. Canada is presently defending its decision to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline at the Federal Court of Appeal, where several B.C. First Nations are arguing that Canada didn’t uphold the honour of the Crown (see: "</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/trans-mountain-federal-court-appeal-consultation-1.5396144" target="_blank">Trans Mountain pipeline expansion approval 'unlawful,' First Nations argue as new court challenge begins</a>,” CBC News, December 16, 2019)</span><span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Critics claim that ‘free, prior and informed consent’ would lead to an indigenous veto for resource development. This claim isn’t supported by Canadian or international law – and it would not be in keeping with Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. Instead, responsible decision-making will be an obligation shared by Crown and indigenous governments (see: "<a href="https://www.policynote.ca/distinguishing-consent-from-veto-in-an-era-of-reconciliation/" target="_blank">Distinguishing consent from veto in an era of reconciliation</a>,” Jason Tockman, Policynote, April 10, 2017).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Make no mistake: power-sharing with indigenous nations poses a serious threat to those who want to continue to develop fossil fuels. Indigenous peoples are on the front lines of the climate emergency, fighting for justice against unwanted fossil infrastructure. The implementation of UNDRIP will almost certainly force our governments to finally make science-based decisions that leave most of our coal, oil and gas safely sequestered in the ground. That will be good for all of Canada’s communities – and for the planet.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;">Originally published online and in print as, <a href="https://www.thesudburystar.com/opinion/columnists/steve-may-implementing-undrip-will-change-canada-for-the-better" target="_blank">"Steve May: Implementing ‘UNDRIP’ will change Canada for the better</a>," at the Sudbury Star, Saturday December 22, 2019 - without hyperlinks.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-71537532533614161622019-11-26T05:11:00.000-05:002019-11-26T08:11:50.235-05:00Community Energy and Emissions Plan Sets Sudbury on Course for Transformative Change<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">What will be called one of the most important and visionary plans to guide change in the City of Greater Sudbury received preliminary approval from Council earlier this month. The <a href="https://www.greatersudbury.ca/live/environment-and-sustainability1/pdf-documents/draft-greater-sudbury-community-energy-and-emissions-plan/" target="_blank">Community Energy and Emissions Plan</a> (CEEP) is a comprehensive strategy to reduce the use of fossil fuels. With a net-zero emissions target for the year 2050, the plan calls for normalizing transformative change in how we shape, build and get around our communities.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Positioned as part of the response to the City’s recent declaration of a climate emergency, the CEEP has actually been in the works for a couple of years. It’s been the subject of considerable public and stakeholder engagement (see:“<a href="https://www.thesudburystar.com/opinion/columnists/may-powerup-to-cut-energy-use-carbon-pollution-in-sudbury" target="_blank">May: PowerUp to cut energy use, carbon pollution in Sudbury</a>,” the Sudbury Star. October 6, 2018)</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">, and it’ll be heading back out to the public, with the final plan expected to go to Council in the early new year.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Not surprisingly, the CEEP is data-heavy. It establishes a baseline for emissions, and projects where Greater Sudbury might end up if we do nothing for the next 30 years, through what it calls a “Business as Usual” scenario. Greater Sudbury can still expect to see an 11% reduction in energy use by 2050. What’s driving the decline is the on-going shift to electric personal and commercial vehicles and (importantly for Sudbury), industrial vehicles used in mining operations. But a warming climate itself also gives us a bit of an assist, as the number of days needed to heat our homes, mostly with emissions-intensive natural gas, is decreasing due to shorter winter seasons.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Transportation is responsible for the largest share of emissions in the City. By 2050, the CEEP is calling for 35% of all trips to be made through active transportation – also known as walking and cycling. Today, that number seems highly aspirational in a City that at times appears to go out of its way to cater to cars. But Greater Sudbury isn’t alone in needing to re-engineer a largely suburban built-form so as to better accommodate the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. After all, with or without the CEEP, there are going to be many more people getting around on bikes and on foot in the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Rachelle Niemela, chair of Bike Sudbury (formerly the Sudbury Cyclists Union), identifies the City’s budget process, which is about to get underway, as a crucial time to flag needed improvements. One of Bike Sudbury’s priorities is the completion of a minimum grid of safe cycling infrastructure, connecting neighbourhoods to each other and to employment areas.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">“This is coming along,” says Niemela. “We fully support the work that is being planned for the Paris/Notre Dame bikeway, and routes that are recommended in the TMP (Transportation Master Plan). The TMP however has some missing links and missing</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">infrastructure on high-volume, high-speed roads what we’d like to see addressed. The TMP’s timelines indicate that a safe and complete network can only be competed in 15 to 20 years. We need to develop an action plan to more quickly implement that network and build the grid.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Municipalities are used to moving at the speed of incremental change. But the CEEP is clear that transformative change, which requires significant upfront investment in infrastructure and programs, will save citizens and the municipality money, while creating jobs and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Waiting another 20 years to be able to safely bike around the City just isn’t in the cards, given the climate emergency.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If you’re interested, the next Community Energy and Emissions Plan workshop takes place at 6:30 PM, Thursday, November 28th, at the Northbury Hotel and Conference Centre, 50 Brady Street. And Bike Sudbury is hosting a social at Spacecraft Brewery, 854 Notre Dame Avenue, on Wednesday, November 27th, starting at 7:00 PM.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Originally published online and in print as, "<a href="https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/may-plan-sets-sudbury-on-course-for-transformative-change" target="_blank">May: Plan sets Sudbury on course for transformative change</a></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">," at the Sudbury Star, Saturday November 23, 2019 - without hyperlinks.</span>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-31572239178409505622019-11-13T06:15:00.000-05:002019-11-13T06:15:04.344-05:00OK Greens, Where Do We Go From Here?<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"<i>Greens might take some solace in seeing Elizabeth May returned to the House accompanied by two new B.C.-based MP's (and having had a few other candidates show strong second-place finishes in B.C. and New Brunswick). But 3 MP's will prove a disappointment for a Party that sees Green fortunes rising around the world, but can do little to tap into the same sentiment here in Canada, in part thanks to our antique First Past the Post electoral system. Before the year is out, May will announce her pending departure as Party leader in 2020, although she will stay on as MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.</i>" - From: "<a href="https://sudburysteve.blogspot.com/2018/12/crystal-ball-gazing-mainly-political.html" target="_blank">Crystal Ball Gazing: (Mainly) Political Predictions for 2019</a>," Sudbury Steve May, December 31, 2018. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">OK. So here we are, with a bittersweet election behind us, an interim leader in place, and a leadership contest coming up quickly. I guess nobody would have thought that we'd end up here at the end of 2019....</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Ahem. Anyway, here we are. Perhaps it's time for the Green Party of Canada and its engaged members to give some serious consideration about where we go from here. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">I think we have several options - some of which are admittedly pretty bold. Let me lay them out for you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">We can opt to continue to muddle along as we've always done. I expect that's the most likely route that we're going to take, even though this option is going to likely lead to disappointment during the next election, as well.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Change, though, is never easy - and that's especially true for engaged Greens who are, like every other partisan, pretty set in our ways. Add the fact that we haven't been asked to change much over the past 13 years, and you can see how our complacency has become fairly intractable. I don't think that Greens are going to opt to shift gears in any significant way over the next year - but if we were to think about doing it, clearly now is the time.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">We do have some other options. Rather than muddling through, Greens could boldly choose someone from outside of the Party with a high profile on whom to pin our hopes for success. Forget about policy and all that - let's run on the basis that our leader is golden - or at least better than the other leaders - and let's see Greens elected because of her (whomever she may be).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Alternatively, maybe it's time to rethink just who and what our Party is. Perhaps the way to success lies not in emulating the NDP or the Liberals, but instead using the Bloc Quebecois as our model.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Or maybe it's time to acknowledge that the Green Party of Canada simply does not have the time to elect enough Green MP's to create the change that we need in Canada right now, because of the climate crisis. With the clock ticking, maybe we ought to be looking around for a wagon to hitch ourselves to that can carry a few more of us over the finish line - even if that means that the Green Party of Canada as we know it, ceases to be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Merge with the NDP</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Let's explore that last option first, as it's the one that I think we ought to seriously explore - even though the NDP and its present leader Jagmeet Singh opted to burn bridges with our Party during the recent election. I know some New Democrats have simply shrugged about that and said, "Hey, Politics" but the fact of the matter is the NDP has some serious issues with ethics that make them a very undesirable partner for a merger.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">I like to describe myself as the Green Party's most partisan Partisan - and I've been writing for years about how the NDP is a) just not serious about the climate crisis; and, b) infected by a culture of winning to the point that it no longer stands for much of anything. With recent bridges burnt, why the hell am I suggesting that merger with the New Democrats is in the interest of Greens?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">It all comes back to timing. The IPCC gave us just 12 years to get our act together on the climate crisis - and that was last year. We just went through an election where the other three national parties were running on climate action plans that were woefully inadequate to achieve Canada's weak targets. The NDP's plan was a little better than that offered up by the Liberals, but even that plan wasn't good enough.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HhdKoYqyCaU/Xcs7_ozwZDI/AAAAAAAABFM/yd7O04FIMqIbKwR0WAWSWV2llCQ16LmaACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Jagmeet_Singh_at_the_2nd_National_Bike_Summit_-_Ottawa_-_2018_%252842481105871%2529_%2528cropped%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="513" data-original-width="345" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HhdKoYqyCaU/Xcs7_ozwZDI/AAAAAAAABFM/yd7O04FIMqIbKwR0WAWSWV2llCQ16LmaACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Jagmeet_Singh_at_the_2nd_National_Bike_Summit_-_Ottawa_-_2018_%252842481105871%2529_%2528cropped%2529.jpg" width="215" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">But the NDP, under Singh, have moved the ball in their own party over the past several years. I know, I know: I can hear Greens now saying that this was just to get elected - that the NDP would do or say anything to win votes, but at the end of the day, they're not serious climate champions. Look at how Singh caved to Trudeau in his list of "demands" that failed to include beefing up Canada's emission reduction targets. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Look, I get it. And I'll throw in a John Horgan who continues to pimp out LNG, and a Rachel Notley who never saw a pipeline she didn't like. I get it. But the NDP has upped its game enough that they are now closer to the Green Party on many issues - closer than they've ever been before.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">And if we're simply going to keep electing a number of MP's that we can count on a single hand (and that seems to be the direction the Party is heading in), what is the point of wasting more time and effort, treasure and sweat, in ridings like Sudbury and Central Nova and Kelowna?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Greater than the Sum of Our Parts</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">If we worked with the NDP instead of against them, we will have a much greater chance of electing MP's that are a little more serious about taking action on the climate crisis. What I'm talking about doesn't have to be an outright merger with the NDP - but that's probably the cleanest way of proceeding, given the media's ability to misconstrue and muddle any intentions that aren't a binary black/white choice.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">The NDP is not exactly the healthiest political party out there at this time. There are elements in that party who would be open to a merger. Sure, like we Greens, there are New Democrats who would be appalled at the notion of merging - but if talks could take place first at high levels, and the memberships of both parties be presented with, I don't know, some sort of values-based agreement in principle - I bet we could pull off a merger before the next election.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">And elect more MPs together than we would have separately.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Regional Green Parties</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Alternatively, the Green Party of Canada could just pack it in throughout most of the country. Fact of the matter is, we're pretty sparse on the ground in most of Canada's regions anyway. I've often wondered what I'm doing here in a no-hope riding, just waving the flag when it's like pulling teeth to find someone, anyone, to help grow our presence here. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and that Sudbury isn't the only riding where this is happening.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Fact of the matter is, national campaigns cost money. What if we didn't do that, because there was no longer a national party? What if we focused our efforts on electing Greens just in certain regions, like Vancouver and Vancouver Island, and the Maritimes? Dissolve the Green Party of Canada, and from its ashes see two or three regional Green Parties rise up - each with its own member-approved mandate and policies, tailored for regional success.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Sure, those parties might not receive the same level of national exposure as a single Green Party of Canada would. But now that Elizabeth May is gone, how much exposure do you expect the Green Party of Canada to receive over the next few years? What level of success have we experienced so far, doing what we've been doing, and what are our expectations going forward? They're not great.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Regional parties are actually very much in keeping with our values for participatory democracy - in a way that, say, a full national party in a nation as regionally divided as Canada is, isn't. Yes, it might mean that Greens like me are left homeless in some of the regions - but maybe we'd have to find new homes and work from inside the other parties to create the changes that we want to see. It's not ideal, but we don't have time for ideal.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><b>PR-Driven Leader</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">I understand that dissolving the Green Party of Canada probably isn't high on anybody's list of "things to do" right now (even though it really ought to be), so the best that we're likely to do if we want to see more Green MP's elected (and that's a big "if" for many in our party) would be to find a leader with a high profile who can stay in the media's eye until the next E-Day. Yes, I'm talking about winning on the basis of public relations. A leader that looks and sounds great, who people know, and trust (and maybe even like). They wouldn't have to be a policy heavy-weight. They'd just have to be able to deliver the goods. Think about how Ben Mulroney's name is being floated right now in Conservative circles. Or how Svend Robinson's name might have been floated in New Democratic circles had he won a seat.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dFliGoRhHQA/Xcs8CE8htzI/AAAAAAAABFQ/eFsg5UgSEBs32aMAHqG57vyPXp5u2fSfwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Pam%2BAnderson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1129" data-original-width="1125" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dFliGoRhHQA/Xcs8CE8htzI/AAAAAAAABFQ/eFsg5UgSEBs32aMAHqG57vyPXp5u2fSfwCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/Pam%2BAnderson.jpg" width="198" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pamela Anderson</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Even this is a tall order. There isn't anyone like that in the Party right now. And the membership would probably hate that concept just as much (or more) than a merger or a dissolution of the national party to create regional entities. We'd have to find somebody from outside of the Party to step in and take on this role. Jody Wilson-Raybould might be the most obvious choice, but I've seen some Greens floating names like Naomi Klein and Megan Leslie. I myself keep floating Kathleen Wynne's name (although I can't seriously imagine she'd want the job - but then again, I can't imagine Klein or Leslie would, either). Some have even suggested Pamela Anderson. In all seriousness, I'm not actually sure how I feel about that idea - there is a hell of a lot of merit to finding a celebrity like Anderson to lead our Party.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ENcI_UaxMzc/Xcs8ntPhHvI/AAAAAAAABFc/bT7GPWIDYmoo0mfurLQltVrn72EKDBiywCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Rick%2BMercer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ENcI_UaxMzc/Xcs8ntPhHvI/AAAAAAAABFc/bT7GPWIDYmoo0mfurLQltVrn72EKDBiywCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/Rick%2BMercer.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rick Mercer</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">If he wasn't such a Liberal, I'd totally suggest Rick Mercer.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Anyway, point is, these are the types of leaders that we really ought to be thinking about right now. I understand that their own values may not always be in keeping with the values of the Party, but if they can bring themselves to take on the role of spokesperson that our Party's Constitution mandates our leaders to adopt, that might just be enough for, let's say, more ideologically-driven Green candidates to find themselves winning seats.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">After all, election campaigns aren't about policy. They're about being able to deliver a message of confidence and competence. The Green Party just got through running an election campaign that (where anyone noticed it at all) was largely based on fear - it wasn't a good look for us, despite the fact that the world is going to become one hell of a scary place if we don't get our act together. Mostly, though, Elizabeth May was left having to explain why Greens weren't anti-choice, racists, in bed with separatists, and really did do politics differently despite Warren Kinsella and photoshop. There was little opportunity to tell voters why having a plan to tackle climate change sorta kinda mattered.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">And that's not going to change. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Jagmeet Singh probably salvaged losing a half dozen seats on the basis of "Mr. Deny and Mr. Delay" alone. Two-second zingers in leadership debates count for more than a fully-costed climate action plan that would still see the economy grow by 1.3%.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">And no, I'm not being facetious here. I wish more Greens understood this. We can have all of the policies in the world to save the world - but if we don't have the media's attention, it won't matter. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">But Greens don't want to hear this. I can't really blame them - it's cynical and it's crappy. It doesn't necessarily have to be, though. Think about all of the people NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has inspired - just don't contrast that number to the number of people that Singh has turned off with his touchy-feely hope-y whatever. A lot of people like that lightweight stuff. It sells. It's not something that any Green could have ever asked Elizabeth May to do - but it works.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Muddling Through</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Most likely, we Greens will do nothing. We'll be offered up a smorgasboard of nomination contestants that most of us don't know, and we'll have little opportunity to find out who, exactly, these people are, and what they stand for. Their own vision won't matter all that much anyway - for if anyone does start talking about taking the party in a 'new direction' they're going to run into the ire of the membership, which is the unit of the party that sets policy (not the leader).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Sure, they'll each talk about organization - and maybe this is how they'll set themselves apart from one another. Engaged Greens will love to hear about how a new leader is going to rebuild the Party from the inside out, and about how they'll work with the administration to find the funds for a more robust organizing team. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">I won't be looking for any of that. There's just not enough time. Yes, if we're going to function as a national party, we need better organization on the ground - especially at the EDA level. But that's going to take years. And we don't have years.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Better to elect a strong leader who can motivate voters with her speaking style, her charisma, her passion, and (best yet) her experience. Let our #elxn44 candidates ride her coat-tails in a dozen (or a couple of dozen) ridings. Our focus, going forward, has to be on winning more seats.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">But it won't be. It will continue to be a mish-mash of priorities which see maybe one or two things getting done, while most of the rest are half-assed while a few important things prove to be just too big or too intractable to tackle. And we'll just continue to muddle along. Sure, maybe our national support level will drop back down to 3% in the next election - but with a new leader at the helm - someone whom voters have never heard of - well, 3%'ll be pretty good, won't it?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><b>The Clock is Ticking</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Muddling through is a legitimate path for any organization to take. In normal times, I might even be an advocate. But with the clock ticking and time for serious climate action growing short, these aren't normal times. I continue to believe that we can achieve so much more if we opt to work with the NDP. And if that's just not on, then let's focus our efforts on building regional powerbases rather than trying to keep a truly national organization afloat. But if we are going to try to hack it out nationally, let's at least find a leader whom everyone knows and get behind them as they talk about no more than three-to-five bullet points each and every day until E-Day.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">Failing that, I guess we just elect whomever and hope for the best. But if we take that course, let's not kid ourselves about the potential for success. It's the easy way out, for sure - but it's not going to help our 5th place party.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><i>(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)</i></span>Sudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.com1