I will begrudgingly admit that the Globe is under no obligation to publish everything I send them, but it’s unfortunate they didn’t print the following letter, sent yesterday, as a way of correcting their incorrect statement from yesterday’s editorial that “not one [party] has come out against the new bill.”
The Globe and Mail is absolutely correct to condemn the NDP for joining with the Conservatives in “pandering to fears of Islam” and targeting Muslim women, especially considering that MPs have no problem with Canadians who vote without showing their faces so long as they live abroad. This follows Jack Layton’s strange and disturbing pronouncement late last year that he “prefers” Canadians who aren’t dual citizens to lead political parties, as if Canadians who hold dual citizenships are somehow second class. His party, which should be the champion of social justice, human rights and equality, seems to have lost its way in the pursuit of power and a closer relationship with those who hold it. Readers should know that there is one party, the Green Party of Canada, that opposes this shameful piece of legislation.
When there’s only one party taking a position that a significant number of Canadians support, it’s critically important for the media to report that so that voters can make informed decisions. Scott’s roundup on how NDP bloggers are reacting is also quite informative:
The decision by the NDP and Jack Layton to support the Cons. motion on prohibiting veiled voters from casting ballots has enraged traditional NDP supporting bloggers, and unaffiliated blogs on the progressive left who are normally sympathetic to the NDP today, although with the NDP’s view on blogging regarding it as the black sheep of the family, one wonders what if any effect it will have, or if anyone in NDP HQ even notices the discomfiture this has caused amongst their normally very loyal supporters.
Uhmmm, let me jump out on a limb and suggest that the editorial was talking about parties that have elected members of the House of Commons.
Since the GPC has never elected a member, one wonders why your voice should be treated differently than how they have.
It seems to me there are many many parties in Canada that have never elected members to the HofC. So, what is the basis of your claim that amongst these equals, you are the only party in Canada that has this view?
I think Chris you’ve been reading too many rogue polls and erroneously believe at this point, the MSM takes the GPC seriously, or should. Or think that somehow the GPC is equivalent to the four parties elected to the HofC.
I think you and others need a reality check, This blog only reinforces my opinion.
The difference between the Greens and “other parties” (that do not hold seats in the house) is that the Greens are consistently polling in a growing trend of support from voters, and this can only go up.
The fact that the Globe has refused to acknowledge this shows that it is biased in refusing to let a party that is garnering over 7% of total votes in the last election alone be treated as democratically as other parties.
You my dear, clearly thinks (as with the Globe) that the opinions of a party that represents over 150, 000 Canadians doesn’t matter…
Kar3n,
In the last election , the GPC was supported by 4.6% percent of the electorate, largely unchanged from the 2004 election, and didn’t come even close to electing a member. Since the G&M editorial is talking about the HofC, it is the Fed election that is relevant.
According to SES, the polling firm that the GPC invited to its last Convention, http://web.greenparty.ca/article51.html
the support for the GPC has remained largely flatlined, recently polling at 6%.
http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-F07-T267.pdf
As for Chris’ statement, I think he should have polled other parties that also have no elected members, such as the ones noted on CalgaryGrit’s blog before making such claims.
http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2007/11/resistance-is-futile.html
Perhaps, if the GPC didn’t get involved with stunts such as hunger strikes, the G&M and other MSM might take it seriously – just a thought.
Hunger strikes, letter-writings, media stunts etc. are all different forms of protests and are fundamental rights of Canadians and citizens at large for any functioning democracy to work. If the current government reflected the interest of its voters, than maybe a hunger strike wouldn’t be needed. Don’t bash those that dare to stand up for their rights Dot. While the rest of us can only stand on the sidelines and cheer them on.
I you were the member of a Professional organization that is subject to a code of ethics and Professional practice, there is a good chance that you would be subject to discipline if you supported or encouraged hunger strikes.
That perhaps separates our viewpoints. The rest of the activities would likely not fall under such sanctions.
Maybe the green party (unlike the Conservatives) actually allow their members the freedom to express their concerns in whichever manner they want and can.
Oh I’m sure “media stunts” will fall under these so-called sanctions as well. Like supporting the troops but not the mission – applies to this case as well.
Whatever. Read the G&M columns Monday.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071203.MACGREGOR03/TPStory/TPComment/?query=