| Dave's profileEgalitarian-Internationa...PhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
A Modest ProposalThe 2007 NDP could be influential, tweaking bills and making deals - a social justice NGO with a parliamentary presence. This NDP is unappealing to me but there are options.
With Mississauga-Streetsville MP Wajid Khan's defection, the Conservatives and NDP have a working majority. For the NDP that need not mean tweaking bills and making deals.
Stephen Harper is bold enough to declare the Quebecois a nation. Is he bold enough to form a coalition government? He says there is no need for three federal elections in two years and he wants to make Parliament work. I heard Prime Minister Harper quote Layton approvingly for saying the same thing.
Most importantly, the Afghan mission has not had enough time to achieve tangible success and Prime Minister Harper needs more time to break the insidious hold Liberal operatives have on Canada's Public Service.
When the NDP held the balance of power in Ontario in 1985 - the Conservatives had just swung to the right, with Miller defeating Grossman to succeed Bill Davis. Miller's right-wing Conservatives bid against the Liberals for NDP support, a process that lasted weeks. If Miller was that flexible, Harper can be more so. His new House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform, Peter Van Loan, supported Dianne Cunningham against Mike Harris in 1990 for Ontario Conservative Leader.
The Ontario Citizens' Assembly will almost certainly propose a German/Scottish-style Mixed Member Proportional system. It should be approved in October's provincial general election. The sooner Canadians get used to coalition governments the better.
To my fellow NDPers I say: My goal is to see the NDP in government. Does that mean getting 50 per cent of the vote? Let's be serious: few democratic countries have single-party governments. So we have to start getting our minds around coalition politics.
Dave Mann Vintage RebickJudy Rebick has ended her support for the Green Party. This is terrible news. I'm serious.
I've copied her open letter at the end of my comments.
Rebick's departure will help make the Green Party appear more inviting to moderate Canadians.
Remember when the NDP expelled the Waffle and the ONDP expelled Buzz? The effect on our (the NDP's) poll numbers was positive. With friends like Rebick who needs enemies? Her termination letter would have been more effective if she quoted May rather than paraphrase so we could make up our own minds as to whether or not the statement warrented Judy's reaction.
One, of many reasons, the NDP so far failed to replace the Liberal party is that we are burdened with a far-left faction designed to serve a certain very strategic purpose, to systematically handicap the NDP by making it impossible for the party to adapt to changing conditions. Far left-types like Rebick weigh in on the NDP and put it into a "no solution" box.
Rebick is a master copy from which Canadian "Status-quo Leftists" can be made.
And all it took May was to make a few comments about an issue that the current Conservatives won't touch to get Rebick out of her hair.
Now, either Rebick will work for Dion from within Liberal ranks or work for the Liberals by undermining us (New Democrats) from the inside - a Christmas present for Stephane either way.
I will say something good about Judy: When she paid that woman to dress up as the Statue of Liberty during the Quebec Summit protests - that was real cool.
Dave Mann
-----------------------------------
An open letter to Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party by Judy Rebick December 20, 2006
Dear Elizabeth,
I would have written sooner but I have been travelling. Since I got back, I have carefully reviewed your statements on abortion and I have to say that I am sorry but I will no longer be supporting you or the Green Party in any way.
As you know I was very supportive of your running as leader of the Green Party and despite my differences with some of the platform of the Party I have up until now felt that your presence added a great deal to the federal political scene. But now you have questioned the most important victory of the women's movement of my generation.
If you had said that you personally oppose abortion but you support a woman's right to choose, I would have been fine with that. Instead you said that a woman's right to choose, something tens of thousands of Canadian women fought for for decades, was trivializing an important issue.
It felt like a slap in the face.
Since you have so little respect for me or for the women's movement which mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green Party and you can no longer rely on me for support.
There is no middle ground on the abortion issue as you are no doubt finding out. The organized opposition to abortion in this country as in the United States does not care if women die. Of course, there are many people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons but here I am talking about the anti-choice activists.
I personally have debated right-to-lifers for 30 years. There is no dialogue here. They put the life of a foetus above the rights and even the lives of women. Whether or not you agree with this, by raising the issue in the way that you did, you contribute to their position.
We had a debate on abortion in this country for decades. Raising the need for further debate as you have done is a serious error in judgment and in the unlikely possibility that Stephen Harper wins a majority in the next election, you could have done irreparable harm.
I have worked on many issues in my life but this is the one where I have suffered threats up to and including death threats: physical attacks; attempts to get me fired from my job and crass anti-Semitism. I hope you understand who you are crawling into bed with here.
I am very sorry about this Elizabeth, but I cannot attribute your comments to ignorance of the issue since you were around when the issue was being debated.
Best wishes for a good holiday,
Judy Conservatives' commitment to human rights is shallow.Stockwell Day in the House of Commons on Friday, December 8, 2006, "There is no quote anywhere where anyone on this side called Mr. Arar a terrorist."
Diane Ablonczy, Alliance immigration critic November 18, 2002, “Arar was given dual citizenship by this government, they didn’t pick up on his terrorist links,” Ablonzy said during Question Period. “The U.S. had to clue them in to his al Qaeda background.”
Stockwell Day, himself, also then member of the Canadian Alliance, said in reference to the detention of Mr. Arar, November 19, 2002: “There is a lack of vigilance in the country on terrorism. He also called for a Parliamentary inquiry to determine why the Liberals were defending a man suspected of links to al-Qaeda when U.S. officials were accusing him of terrorism charges. (PM Demands release of Ottawa man, Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2003.)
What would it have cost Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper to admit that four years ago some of them had made a mistake? Currently negotiations are being conducted between Mr. Arar's representatives and the government concerning compensation but that (or a bad memory) can't be used as an excuse by Mr. Day for such a total lie.
The war against religious based fascism must be led by a party that is uncompromisingly committed to human rights. At present, Canada hasn't got one. Top Iranian Union Leader Jailed By RegimeFrom LabourStart:
Last winter, the Iranian capital city of Tehran was practically shut down by striking bus drivers. The reaction of the regime was swift and brutal -- hundreds of workers were arrested in an attempt to break their union. The union leader, Mansour Osanloo, was jailed for 8 months and finally released on bail -- but last Sunday was arrested again while on his way to the Labour Ministry. Osanloo was verbally and physically assaulted, threatened with a gun, and driven away by plain-clothes police. Unions around the world are reacting, demanding that the Iranian government release Osanloo immediately. http://www.labourstart.org/ My comments:
A free market and a democracy cannot exist without organized labour. While some Euston Manifesto subscribers may be unconvinced that unions are necessary, I hope we can all agree freedom of association includes the right to collective bargaining and is therefore inalienble. Euston subscribers should oppose "right to work" laws in the United States and any restrictions in any country that prevent workers from collectively expressing their common interests.
Then there are my other collegues on the left who make common cause with fascist organizations that repress workers' fundamental rights. Under the rule of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban no one has the right to anything that does not serve the interests of the clerics. Why defend them? Why defend theocrats? Christopher Hitchens will speaking at Hart House, University of TorontoI've been busy helping three Ontario New Democrats get elected to municipal office and worked in Alberta last month. So I haven't done much lately to build support for the Euston Manifesto. Hopefully, the following will re-inspire me: The man who has most influenced my opinions over the last eigtht years will be visiting Toronto this week. I'm sure he will have much to say about Afghanistan. I hope to meet him. From: http://hhdebate.sa.utoronto.ca/formaldebate.html Debate on Freedom of Speech "Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate" -- November 15, 2006, 7:30 pm Speaker - Christopher Hitchens Christopher Hitchens was born in April 1949 in Portsmouth, England and was educated at the Leys School, Cambridge and Balliol College, Oxford. He holds an Honours Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. From 1971-1981, Hitchens worked as a book reviewer in London for The Times and was social science editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement. He was assistant editor and staff writer at The New Statesman; researcher/reporter for London Weekend Television and chief foreign correspondent for Daily Express. Hitchens emigrated to the United States in 1981 where he worked as a weekly book reviewer for New York Newsday and continued on as a writer, commentator, critic and social intellectual for many publications since. Hitchens is among one of the best known controversial writers and critics in the media. He was a columnist for Vanity Fair, The Nation, and Slate. He is also a frequent or regular contributor to the New York Review of Book, the London Review of Books, the New York Times Book Review, Los Angeles Times Book Review, and the Atlantic Monthly, among many other publications. As foreign correspondent and travel writer, Hitchens has written from more than sixty countries on all five continents, from Afghanistan, Albania and Angola through Dublin, India, Iran, Iraq and Japan, to Vietnam, Western Sahara, Xylophagou and Zimbabwe. He is the only writer to have written, since 2000, from Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Hitchens’ essays and articles have been collected or anthologized in The Penguin Book of Twentieth-Century Essays, Best American Essays of 2001, Best American Travel Writing of 2002, Best American Political Writing of 2004, and the “best of” collections published by The London Review of Books, The Spectator, The Nation, The New Statesman, The Weekly Standard and Best 50 Atlantic Monthly Book Reviews. He is the author of many books including Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, Karl Marx and the Paris Commune, The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain’s Favourite Fetish, International Territory: The UN After Fifty Years, The Palestine Question, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq. My first speaking engagement:Friday October 6th, I received and accepted an invitation from Barry D'Costa, President, Cambridge NDP Federal Riding Association to the following: Cambridge NDP Federal Riding Executive Meeting Tuesday, October 10, 2006, 7 PM – 9 PM
Canada’s Military Mission in Afghanistan: Special Guest Speaker Dave Mann will briefly summarize the current NDP Policy as adopted at Convention. He will provide an alternate view concerning the NDP and the Afghanistan Mission. Letter to my fellow delegatesTo: NDP Delegates From: Dave Mann, Convention Delegate, Brant
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 10:35 AM, Quebec City ---
I recognized then [after a trip to World Youth Congress in Geneva in August 1936] that if you came to a choice between losing freedom of speech, religion, association, thought and resorting to force, you use force.
- Tommy Douglas.
The CCF caucus, including Tommy Douglas, voted in favor of war (1939). This proved to many Canadians that the CCF was not a radical party and afforded moderate voters the opportunity to elect North America`s first socialist government.
Fellow Delegates: Today I am asking you to deny "an overwhelming majority" to the proposal to remove Canadian Forces from Afganistan. How do Canada's New Democrats propose to safeguard the democratic process in Afghanistan?
What will help us convince at least a quarter of those who vote that we would make the best government?
"Canadian troops are not engaged in peacekeeping. They are involved on one side in a civil war." - James Laxer
Yes, and just as Karl Marx and many other socialists publicly advocated for the Union's victory over the Confederacy in the US civil war, so it is also in the interests of New Democrats to support and to advocate for those forces in Afghanistan that are building democratic institutions and the rule of law.
As MALALAI JOYA is proving, Afghanis are as deserving of democracy as any other human being. The NDP I grew up in backed the Republican`s in Spain (1936), the African National Congress in its violent struggle against apartheid and the Sandinistas, for a time, in their fight with the Contras.
There are so many obvious questions that arise from our leader`s statements, but I haven't seen them answered anywhere. Should all our troops come home, or should our troops just withdraw to Kabul? Should our troops stick with NATO/ISAF and not work with the Americans?
If the Taliban don't agree to peace talks by next February, should our troops come home? Should they come home peace talks or not? Should we stay in the form of diplomats and aid workers, absent military security?
If we say no to the government of Afghanistan when they ask for our help, what are the conditions that have to be present to say yes when we're asked for our help?
As of Thursday, I haven't been able to discern MALALAI JOYA`s take on NATO/ISAF. The Afghan Women's Network is quite clear, though - it was the AWN that first called on NATO to help the Afghan government assert control throughout the country, and not just in Kabul. I can't imagine that Joya would support our Leader, Jack Layton's proposal to bring the Taliban into the tent. Joya - I understand, is furious that there are former warlords in the Afghan parliament - she is alone in this, in that everybody wants them to participate in the political system rather than revert to the gun. Would she want Taliban warlords in parliament, too? I seriously doubt it.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. How will Canada's NDP answer Malalai Joya's Challenge?On September 8th, 2006, Malalai Joya, member of the Loya Jerga (Afghan parliament) from Farah Province who received more votes than any other candidate, addressed the Convention of Canada's New Democratic Party. Here are the two paragarphs from her speech that directly relate to Canadians involvement in Afganistan's civil war: "I think if Canada and other governments really want to help Afghan people and bring positive changes, they must act independently, rather than becoming a tool to implement the wrong policies of the US government. They must align themselves to the wishes and needs of Afghan people and stop any kind of support to the warlords and reactionary and ignorant element within the system. Only by such policy, they can gain people's trust and will prove themselves as real friends of Afghan people. We are deeply sorry for the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. If the Canadian government could not act independently rather than following Pentagon's agenda, we are afraid the efforts of Canadian troops will first of all serve the US government and not the Afghan people." full text of speech from NDP website Could anyone provide me with a quote from Ms. Joya in which she explicitly states her wish for Canadian military forces to leave Afghanistan? On Friday, September 8th, 2006, after her speech to the NDP Convention, I attended a gathering of 80 people in Quebec City. Ms. Joya was also there. I was able to ask her "Yes or No, do you want Canada's army to leave Afghanistan." Her assistant (who has my respect, despite her Galloway-esque accent and demeanor) pulled her away from me before she could reply. I have carefully read everything about her on the internet and have read all her speeches. She never comes right out and says "Canada go home." I will not be shocked if someone is able to find the words but so far they have eluded me. Why is this important? Because Ms. Joya did say, "They [Canada and other governments] must align themselves to the wishes and needs of Afghan people and stop any kind of support to the warlords and reactionary and ignorant element within the system." My question to fellow New Democrats: How can we "align [our]selves to the wishes and needs of Afghan people and stop any kind of support to the warlords and reactionary and ignorant element within the system" if we leave the country? We can't do anything if the Taliban and the "Jihadis" are free to put to the sword all who oppose their theocracy. At the NDP Convention Ms. Joya also said "Liberation should be achieved in a country by the people themselves." I agree, that's a fine ideal. But the fact is no nation, not even Canada and the United States of America were able to establish a democracy without outside intervention. Check your history. Brantford Expositor EditorialNDP Right To Debate Policy
September 15, 2006
I would like to thank Retired Master Corporal Darren Farrow for his letter (Sept. 13, 2006, page A6) [included in comment section attached below]. I attended the NDP convention in Quebec City as a delegate for the Brant NDP. I voted against the resolution to have Canada's soldiers leave Afghanistan and was the first delegate to speak against it, immediately following the speech of our leader, Jack Layton. The Muslim world is engaged in a civil war between democrats and religious leaders who pervert Islam to justify their dictatorship. Canada, I believe, has a responsibility to make certain the democrats win. I reminded the delegates that in 1965, even after our Party had passed a resolution against US involvement in Vietnam, David Lewis, a committed anti-communist, NDP Leader and father of Stephen Lewis, had continued to support US actions in Vietnam and defended the British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson's support for the US government. Why would I feel it necessary to remind my fellow New Democrats that former NDP leaders had supported US military actions in the past? Because I thought, among all the delegates there, that I was alone. I was gladly mistaken. Peter Stoffer, an NDP Member of Parliament, also opposed the resolution as did several members of Canada's military there in attendance. The one aspect of Retired Master Corporal Farrow's letter that I found objectionable was the question "...how would you feel if people question your mission while your friends die?" One reason our young women and young men are dying is to extend the right to question the mission, or any government action, to the people of Afghanistan. If I was a soldier I would be glad to know that people were thinking about me, concerned for my well-being. Whether they thought I should be there or not. It seems strange to me that while young people are sacrificing everything people in Canada and the US carry on as if the war isn't happening. The Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to sell the cause, prefering to let the people sleep. Last weekend the NDP maintained its tradition of debating the issues. Since 9/11/2001 the people have been lied to continuously by the chronically incompetant conservative government of George W Bush. It makes it almost impossible to speak in favor of NATO's intervention. One person who is exercising her newly won rights in Malalai Joya. She received more votes than any other person in Afghan history and she despises the Americans almost as much as she hates the Taliban. She spoke at the convention and her speech can be found on the NDP website. It was not easy to argue that our soldiers should stay when the Afghan version of Martin Luther King condemns the mission as being solely in the interests of American corporations. But I tried. Perhaps the retired master corporal doesn't care what an Afghan woman who lives every day in fear of the assassin's bullet thinks? "You cannot question the mission while it is in progress" is representative of the type of fascist argument we should fight against. I wish these arguments weren't partisan; I wish Canadians could agree on our foreign policy. I'm afraid its too late. Some interesting quotes and factsM.J. Coldwell: During debate on the motion concerning the declaration of war on Italy on 10 June 1940, the CCF Party’s spokesman stated: This war is none of our seeking; it is thrust upon us. And we have no option, it seems to me, but to accept the challenge and to go forward to ultimate victory.(7) Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 10 June 1940, p. 653. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp303-e.htm#B.%20Second Tommy Douglas: The CCF caucus, including Tommy Douglas, voted in favor of war (1939). This proved to many Canadians that the CCF was not a radical party and provided moderate voters the option of supporting the CCF. • Opposing dictatorships: “I recognized then [after a trip to World Youth Congress in Geneva in August 1936] that if you came to a choice between losing freedom of speech, religion, association, thought … and resorting to force, you’d use force.” • Support for the war (1941): “I believe that apart from the conscription of men for overseas service, the country should bend every effort towards the successful prosecution of the war.” David Lewis: In July 1965, The Federal NDP passed a resolution opposing the Vietnam War, subsequently in September, the Ontario NDP organized a public meeting, publicized as a "Report from Parliament" at which the featured speaker was Deputy Leader David Lewis. Remember, David was strongly anti-communist thanks in part to his ties to the East European Bundist movement. At the meeting Lewis defended British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s support of the U.S., telling the audience that "both sides" were to blame for the conflict, and that the greatest danger to peace in Southeast Asia was China. Lewis was roundly booed at this meeting. http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists//history/canada/socialisthistory/Docs/1961-/Vietnam/SevenYears.htm From the Communist Manifesto: Karl Marx on the "universal interdependence of nations." In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, ... The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. ... National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing ... to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. - From Leon Trotsky's 1909 "Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism." Euston in CanadaFrom the June 03, 2006 NormBlog: Terry Glavin is writing about the manifesto in the Globe and Mail (subscription required).
Now, a new post from a New Democrat or two would be welcome. Will the real left please stand up?Will the real left please stand up?
True liberals, who don't buy into the cultural relativism and anti-Americanism of today's left, need a movement of their own Morton Weinfeld, Ottawa Citizen Published: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 For many decades, and more noticeably in the aftermath of 9/11 and the launching of the "war on terror," there has been a vacuum on the political spectrum. It has been harder for the so-called democratic or non-communist left, (or American Democrats in the Kennedy, Humphrey and Johnson tradition) to find an intellectual and political home. full article... "I will leave the Party if..."(Please press here to read the resolution that may be debated at the NDP Convention this September.)
Sometimes, for whatever reason, when I distribute my opinions on the internet I am rewarded for my civic mindedness with insults. Often, I perceive a negative reaction where none was intended, due either to the limitations of written communication or to my own personality.
I think that in the NDP and on the internet especially, the kitchen is just too hot and alot of good cooks are driven out because they are too sane to subject themselves to the heat.
Often, political activists quit a Party because it's leadership does not say or do what they want them to do. I believe that this tactic - threatening to bolt our Party if the opinion leaders in it do not adopt a specified position on a given issue - is counter-productive and illegitimate. Foreign Affairs is one category in which I think New Democrats allow ourselves to perceived as heading in the wrong direction. I am uncomfortable when a comrade promotes or defends the Stalinist dictatorship of Cuba while the democratically elected government of Iraq, headed by members of the Socialist International, is abandoned, left to the mercies of Islamic-Fascists and the U.S. religious right.
Are there between 40-50,000 members in our Party? There are dozens of possible positions on each issue that can be adopted. If everyone insisted that their position become "official" and that all representatives in the Party condition their activities according to the dictates of this policy, would there be any one left in it? Politics would be abandoned by all except those advancing their own selfish short-term interests.
If your committment to a party is predicated on one position and everyone were to follow that same decision-making style then how large and effective would your party be?
I do not believe that all our candidates should vote the same on every issue.
If in Newfoundland, most working class people are opposed to a woman's right-to-choose, then by all means, elect a pro-life socialist. You don't like an NDP candidate's position on a given issue; then find a New Democrat in another riding you can support. The more detailed a Party's platform becomes; the more potential supporters we alienate.
In his April 30th 2005 address to the Ontario NDP Provincial Council entitled "TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE 21st CENTURY" Malemolla David Makhura, Provincial Secretary of the Gauteng ANC identified some the strategic errors committed by the Left in the 20th and in the new century:
1. Tendency towards [...] sectarianism: [...] A huge amount of time is wasted, fights around issues of disagreement instead of building alliances [...]. A progressive party needs to be able to unite various sectors, classes and ideological currents on a minimum programme to achieve an alternative society. [...]
2. Tendency towards dogmatism: [...] Changes in the global economy and social structures of many societies pose serious challenges around the question as to what constitutes progressive change [...] for example, our attitude to the neo-liberal dimensions of globalization should not be confused with reactionary opposition to technological progress.
[...]
4. Difficulties of organisational renewal: [...] A progressive party needs vibrant inner-party political life and robust internal democracy wherein election of leadership and selection of candidates is done by the party membership and grassroots structures. [...]
The full text can be found at http://www.ontariondp.on.ca/newsletter.php
My understanding of the axis that defines what is left (egalitarian) and what is right (corporate) is determined by the question "What should be the role of the citizen in determining who rules?" The Liberals would prefer to leave politics to an elite, requiring the people only to ratify the decisions taken by them. They are, therefore, a right-wing party.
What will determine the platform of the Liberal Party going into the next election? It will be determined by the advisors chosen by the new leader. Their perception of the opinion polls will determine the Liberal Party platform. The convention delegates and membership of the party are irrelevant.
The means determine the ends. Liberal practice guarantees a result favourable to the economic and communications elites of Canada.
On April 13th, 2006 at CAW Local 636, in Woodstock, Ontario, I attended a speech in given by Allan Slater, a Christian Brother who had spent some time in Iraq, which included the period that four of his compatriots were being held hostage. One aspect of his stay there impressed me greatly: The Christian Brothers would meet with leaders from different communities and help them work out their differences and avoid conflict.
Apparently the US and British forces had no problem with the activities of the Christian Brothers, Allan commented that they were only concerned for their safety. But the foreign mecenaries who came to fight in the name of Islam had a big problem with them. The Christian Brothers were presented with the choice: flee or die.
Allan did not offer any solutions to the conflicts in the Balkans, Iraq, Darfur, Haiti, Afganistan or Zimbabwe. As soon as bullets start flying towards them, the Christian Brothers have only one solution: leave. Their tactics may help to promote democracy and human rights but they are incapable of assisting the democratically elected government of Iraq defeat the Fascists currently terrorizing the people.
New Democrats must not be perceived as being unable to deploy our military forces when the occasion demands it. Will democratically elected feminist leaders in Afganistan's parliament be sacrificed to appease the pacificists in our Party?
Regardless of future events I will not abandon our Party.
Our Party is not equivalent to a box of cereal that you can switch for another brand because it has too much sugar; the New Democratic Party is the representive in Canada of one hundred and thirty-nine years work dedicated to the establishment of a society in which the value of a human being is not determined by the confluence of supply and demand. That is the glue that holds us together. All other causes should be optional; left to each candidate's best judgement.
As members of the Second International, we are a part of the most successful political movement in history. Along the way we have been wrong, sometimes, but without us in Canada children would still be working twelve hours a day in unsafe factories, labour leaders would still be in jail for conspiracy and only men of property would be able to vote.
Party members should be free to advocate for their views inside and outside our Party but I would consider it a waste of my time to pander to anyone who would prostitute their allegiance to the highest bidder. For those people, we have the Liberal Party. CCF-NDP: From Spain to South Africa to Afghanistan In 1974, when I was eleven, my parents bought me a box set of George Orwell novels. At 16 I joined the NDP, perceiving it to be the best vehicle for promoting my newly acquired social democratic convictions. I still believe it is. What I appreciated most about Orwell was his ability to oppose Stalinism as effectively as capitalism and fascism. Readers of Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia" remember that often, social democratic values have been defended with guns.
I remember that our Party long championed the interests of those Canadians who fought in the Spanish Civil war against fascism, despite the fact that the League of Nations, the 1930's version of the U.N., voted against any involvement in the conflict and even worked to prevent aid from reaching the country.
In the late 1930's the party of Tommy Douglas worked with Canadian Communists to send men and material to Republican Spain.
Those Internationalists, who fought with Orwell, rightly perceived:
1) that borders are a tool for dividing working people;
2) that all that "national sovereignty" really means is that the ruling class of a county have a sovereign right to exploit their own people and
3) it is in the self-interest of working people across the world to help each other in the struggle for democracy and liberty.
With respect to foreign relations, what main policy "themes" will help or at least not hurt the NDP's ability to convince at least a quarter of those who vote that we would make the best government?
Foreign relations will not determine the outcome of the election but the wrong posture will reinforce the negative sterotype moderate-left Canadians have of our Party.
The NDP I grew up in backed the African National Congress in its violent struggle against apartheid and the Sandinistas, for a time, in their fight with the Contras.
George W. Bush is our adversary, not our enemy.
The people of Canada are not threatened by Republican Conservatives but from fascists. Today, religion is bent in service to their goals: Sikhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are perverted to serve the will of those whose objective is to deprive human beings of their inalienable rights.
If the U.S. did not exist these fascists would still be incinerating tall buildings because their will is to enslave us. At least since the breakup of Yugoslavia the most effective tool in thwarting the ambitions of Bin Laden and his ideological brethern has been the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Saddam Hussein killed more Iraqis than the American military and if his oil trading buddy Conservative French President Chirac had his way, Saddam's killing machine would still be operating today.
The NDP believes in women's rights and labour rights. Tens of thousands of trade union activists are buried by Saddam's Baath Party in the Iraqi desert. Today the Iraqi labour unions are strong and growing.
My perception is that the NDP's current position is to wait for permission from the U.N., most of whose members are busy murdering political dissidents at home, before we are willing to use our armed forces to support middle-eastern democrats.
Only democratic countries have rights. At the 2003 Federal Convention in Toronto I voted against our anti-war resolution. I was probably the only one. I didn't speak against the resolution. No one did. At the time I felt my dissent would only serve the interests of those media that work against our Party.
Now that democratically elected governments in Afganistan and Iraq are in place and are not demanding that the armed forces of the United States and Canada leave, will we just abandon them?
Dave Mann  U.S. talons are on Afghanistan, should we abandon its people to theocratic despotism?"I said to myself here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves.
"But I have thought some more, since then ... and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem ... And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land." Mark Twain, 1900.
In his Globe and Mail editorial JAMES LAXER explains why Canada should abandon its commitment to the people of Afghanistan, using Mark Twain to demonstrate that we have been here before. No doubt if there were no US strategic interests here, Geoge W. Bush would be bombing Caracas, not Kabul. But George's buddies need their pipeline and so Hugo Chaves gets a pass.
I agree with Laxer when he writes "Canadian troops are not engaged in peacekeeping. They are involved on one side in a civil war."
Yes, and just as Karl Marx and many other socialists publicly advocated for the Union's victory over the Confederacy in the US civil war, so it is also in the interests of New Democrats to support and to advocate for those forces in Afghanistan that are building democratic institutions and the rule of law.
As Malalai Joya is proving, Afghanis are as deserving of democracy as any other human being.
How do Canada's New Democrats propose to safeguard the democratic process in Afghanistan? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.What are the criteria that help to distinguish the foreign policy approach of the Egalitarian Internationalist Left from that of Neo-Cons and what I tentatively label "Status-Quo" Leftists? I borrow the term, Status-Quo Leftists, I believe, from Christopher Hitchens.
When do members of the Egalitarian-Left advocate intervention and who do we ally ourselves with in order to achieve our objectives?
Neo-Cons, it seems to me, practice the dictim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is also the policy of some "Status-quo" Leftists, such as George Galloway.
Al Qaeda is a product of the Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton foreign policy strategy. When the Fascists Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were fighting the enemies of the United States the Neo-Cons helped them and status-quo leftists were against them. When these same people became enemies of the United States their positions switched.
Subscribers to the Euston Manifesto, in stark contrast, are consistent supporters of democratic governments and political movements.
Yesterday, we may support U.S. actions to defeat the Iraq Baathist Party but tommorrow, when the C.I.A. gets back to its regular routine of subverting democracy in Latin America we will find ourselves opposing them.
When do I feel more uncomfortable? When I agree with George Bush or when I agree with Fidel Castro? I would feel more comfortable with the man who will not throw me in jail when I disagree with him.
I would not last a day in Castro's Cuba. Democrats like me would be extradited or thrown in prison.
Those Canadian leftists who take "Solidarity Vacations" to Cuba are an embarassment. I can drive down to Washington D.C., demonstrate and hurl all the verbal abuse I please at George W., and no one lays a hand on me.
Unfortunately, for some of my comrades, the conclusion is not obvious.
 Relevant current resolutions of Canada's New Democratic PartyEvery two or three years Canada's New Democrats meet to debate and ratify policy and elect an administration. The next convention will be September 8-10, 2006 in Quebec City. Below are the current policies of the New Democratic Party that are relevant to subscribers of the Euston Manifesto.
Volume 1 December 2001
95B13.2
WHEREAS 2000 homeless Kurdish people have been killed by Turkish troops since August 1995, and WHEREAS the Kurdish people are facing total genocide in Turkey, Iran and Iraq; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the federal NDP use all the means at its disposal to encourage international mediation through the UN and the Canadian government for an immediate end to Kurdish bloodshed, for release of all Kurdish political prisoners, and for the development of a permanent political solution to this problem.
01B14.1
WHEREAS Federal New Democrat Leader Alexa McDonough and the Federal Caucus have taken a strong and principled stand in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and in doing so have respected the policies of the federal New Democratic Party; and WHEREAS the current U.S.-led military strikes in Afghanistan are not under the clear framework of international law and United Nations authorization and direction; and WHEREAS it is essential that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks be brought to justice for these crimes against humanity, as defined by U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson and others, before an international tribunal under United Nations auspices; and WHEREAS the Liberal government committed Canadian military assets and forces as part of the U.S.-led military coalition without either debate or a vote in the House of Commons; and WHEREAS there has been an alarming increase in racist and religious-based attacks on Muslims, Arab Canadians and other visible minorities including Sikhs since September 11; and WHEREAS a humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Afghanistan as desperate refugees by the millions are facing widespread starvation and death as they flee the terror of the Taliban regime and U.S. bombing; and WHEREAS at this critical time it is very important that Canadians be vigilant to protect against unwarranted attacks on fundamental civil liberties and human rights as part of the comprehensive response to terrorist attacks, bearing in mind the history of internment of Japanese Canadians and the proclamation of the War Measures Act in similar circumstances, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal New Democratic Party
• AFFIRM its strong support for the position taken by the Leader Alexa McDonough and Federal Caucus in response to the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001; • CONDEMN in the strongest possible terms as crimes against humanity the terrorist attacks of September 11, and call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice before an international tribunal with participation from the Muslim community, to be established by the United Nations Security Council and approved by the UN General Assembly; • SUPPORT the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been assigned to undertake this mission with a view to returning them safely home, as well as supporting their families at home in Canada; • CALL UPON the federal government to bring this issue before the United Nations General Assembly under the provisions of Article 35 of the UN Charter, with the objective of seeking a peaceful, diplomatic resolution that would bring the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks to justice; • CONDEMN the federal government's decision to commit military support to the U.S.-led military action without first having scheduled in the House of Commons a full debate and vote, and insists that such debate and vote take place before any further deployment of military resources, particularly given the United States' indication that they may be prepared to expand their attacks to other countries beyond Afghanistan; • REAFFIRM our policy to "oppose offensive military intervention by Canadian forces or others where such action is not sanctioned by the United Nations and the Parliament of Canada", and call for an immediate end to the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan, and to end Canadian participation in this action; • SUPPORT calls to work in the longer term to eradicate the conditions from which despair, violence, hatred and discord arise; • URGE the federal government to lead all Canadians in fighting against the rising tide of intolerance and racism in the aftermath of September 11, particularly directed at Muslims and Arab Canadians; • CALL upon the federal government to contribute generously to an international humanitarian campaign to assist Afghan refugees fleeing Taliban persecution and U.S.-led bombing, including the offer of both significant aid and assistance in relocating refugees; • URGE all member countries of the United Nations to ratify at the earliest possible time the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court. • REAFFIRM the responsibility of the Government of Canada to provide security for the people of Canada and calls for a comprehensive review of security measures, so as to meet the legitimate security concerns of Canadians, while fully respecting civil rights and liberties, such review to be undertaken with urgent consultations, including human rights, civil liberties, labour and faith organizations. Volume 2 May 2003
03 - 4 B2
WHEREAS the Bush U.S. Administration appears to have made the decision to attack Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein; and
WHEREAS this policy is claimed to be an extension of the U.S. led “war on terrorism”, but no evidence has been provided to show that Iraq has played any part in recent terrorist acts against the “west”; and WHEREAS the rational that Iraq is becoming a threat to adjacent or other nations based on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), when three years ago UN Weapon Inspectors stated that 98% if Iraqi WMD capability and the capacity to rebuild them had been eliminated with no evidence that their production base has been reconstituted; and WHEREAS the problem of reaccepting UN Weapon Inspectors is directly tied to the inhumane and unwarranted Anglo-American sanctions against the people of Iraq, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP Federal Council and Caucus urge the federal government to clearly and unequivocally ensure that the Canadian government internationally oppose any aggression against the people of Iraq, based on an expansion of the U.S. led “war on terrorism”. In addition, Canada’s NDP must advocate the earliest elimination of the punishing sanctions against the people of Iraq. 03 - 4 B3
BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Council endorse the following resolution passed by the Socialist International Council:
The Socialist International hereby announces that its member parties – the Israeli Labour Party, Meretz and Fatah – agree that the mutual recognition of the state of Israel and the state of Palestine, as two states to live side by side, should be the initial commitment before negotiations start between the two peoples. The main elements of a final settlement have long been clear to most involved parties: implementation of Security Council resolution 242; establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel under irreversible security guarantees for both sides; borders ensuring that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are part of the Palestinian state, but opening the possibility of negotiated land swaps; both states to have their capital in Jerusalem, and a just solution to the refugee issue. The Socialist International and its above-mentioned member parties stress that negotiations have to be opened immediately and handle all outstanding issues. A cease-fire cannot be a condition to the start of negotiations. Extremists cannot be given the upper hand. The above parties renounce violence and will refrain from participating in any violent activity that harms civilian lives. Firm measures must be taken against such acts. We ask the parties to pay particular attention to the protection of the civilian population. The Israeli Labour Party, Meretz and Fatah will immediately engage in confidence-building activities together, with the help and support of the Socialist International and member parties. Joint groups will be established to discuss and prepare specific issues that will come up within the framework of final status negotiations. The Socialist International will work with the aim of encouraging the United States, Russia and the European Union to find a common stand on final status issues. This stand must be consistent with international legality, and enjoy the support of the UN Security Council. It must also allow concerned Arab states to adhere to it. Particularly, it must take into consideration the parameters included in the recent Saudi initiative. This basic common position should be elaborated before an international peace conference with the participation of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, relevant Arab countries, the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN. The parties to the conflict should be invited to the Conference on the basis of basic principles: land for peace, 242, and an agreement on the establishment of two states and security for both. The Conference should set a timetable for final status negotiations. The Socialist International also encourages our member parties who are parties in conflict to prepare their respective public opinions for a compromise. Israel may not have peace and at the same time keep settlements, while Palestinians may have to accept an internationally supported compromise on the refugee issue. The Socialist International supports the idea of building an international Fund for the Palestinian refugees, which the UN could administer once a permanent political settlement has been achieved on this issue. The Fund should ensure compensation for the losses and the suffering of the refugees, and provide them with the opportunity to start a new life on the basis of the conclusion of a final peace agreement. The better we can show that solutions are within reach, the more likely people will start working for a political settlement rather than a military one. Urgent recovery and reconstruction programs for the Palestinian Authority are needed, including the recovery of taxes, customs and other fees still withheld. Development and security are dependent upon developing democratic institutions and establishing a centralized security authority. The Socialist International insists on the need for international guarantees, international monitoring of implementation of any agreements, international political follow-up of negotiations, and the presence on the ground of a multinational peace-keeping force patrolling borders. 03 - 4 B7.2
BE IT RESOLVED that the New Democratic Party endorse the following policy statement on Iraq, adapted from the Socialist International resolution passed on January 21, 2003: The world is living under the threat of war that creates fear around the world. We stress that war is not inevitable. We should do everything possible in order to avoid war: we must give peace a chance. Therefore we give full support to the UN Secretary General to continue his endeavors in co-operation with the Security Council members, towards the fulfillment of UN Weapon Inspections, and to continue ensuring that all required conditions for their success are met; and for the UN to assume its responsibilities. The New Democratic Party • Stresses that the mission is to achieve complete disarmament of any Iraqi chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, in order to remove any threat to the Iraqi people and the region. Even if they appear in a residual manner, it is the inspectors who must oversee the destruction of these weapons. The UN disarmament inspectors must have all the time they need. If necessary they should be instituted in a permanent form. • Considers that UNSC Resolution 1441 does not authorize automatic recourse to the use of force. Any further steps must be taken by the Security Council after a full assessment of the situation and on the basis of a new resolution. • Expresses its opposition to any unilateral military action and believes that a pre-emptive strike would be contrary to international law, and furthermore could lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region. Diplomacy must be emphasized to avoid unnecessary military action. • Expresses once again its solidarity and support to those who are working for democratic and peaceful change in Iraq. • Expresses its concern with the current humanitarian situation that affects especially women and children. • Calls for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq. The use of force to keep or enforce the peace must stem not from the unilateral judgment of the powerful, but from respect for international law and at the behest, or at least with the express consent of the United Nations Security Council. This, imperfect as it is, is the only body which has the legitimacy to take decisions in the name of the international community. It is in this new light that we view the recent developments in Iraq. We wish to reaffirm our conviction that military solutions must always be the last resort in seeking a just peace, when all other political and diplomatic means have been exhausted, and that the international community and its legitimate representative bodies must act on the basis of clear criteria and with no trace of political or economic opportunism. Equally, we cannot allow the international community to be held hostage by a single state. This is the only way to maintain confidence in the institutions which govern international relations. We confirm our commitment to re-launching a multilateral approach in international relations and consider that the respect of the role of the UN and its bodies - and respect for international law - is the best way to reinforce this perspective. Resolution sent to the NDP Federal ConventionWhether or not the resolution will make it to the floor for debate is still to be determined.
Date of the convention: September 8 - 10, 2006
Submitted to Panel (category): Reclaiming Canada's Place in the World
Human Rights for all
Whereas: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding on all governments and political movements and U.S. foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones; therefore, be it resolved that: Violations of the Universal Declaration are equally to be condemned regardless of context. Canada's New Democrats reject double standards that find violations of human rights by one more deplorable than violations by another. The cultural relativist view that human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples are to be opposed. Furthermore, this policy does not justify a rejection of actions taken by Americans or their government in support of democracy and human rights. Thank you Christopher HitchensChistopher Hitchens: There is a utilitarian case for free expression. It recognizes that the freedom to speak must also be insisted on for the person who thinks differently, because it is pointless to support only free speech for people who agree with you. It is not only unprincipled to want that, but also self-defeating. For your own sake, you need to know how other people think. |
|
|
