Why I Stopped Contributing to Rabble

During the federal election campaign, I contributed several piece to Rabble under my user id AppalledBC, all of which but one are reproduced here on my blog. (I also wrote a piece under my own name on invitation from a Rabble editor.) Some disturbing responses to the one that I chose not to republish prompted me to to abandon writing for the site.

I wrote a piece innocently defending Elizabeth May's choice of ridings in which to run in 2008 and 2011. Naively taking her at her word in public interviews, I argued that she ran in these ridings because she lived there. I was severely criticized for the error of my ways when respondents KenS and Northern Shoveler pointed out in no uncertain terms that I was dead wrong: she and the Green Party brain trust chose the ridings first, and she then moved to them in order to run. I was suitably chasten, though I did quibble about the accusation of obfuscation on May's exclusion from mainline national media discourse once she was out of the debates for good, arguing that it was still a form of political exclusion by Big Media. Those contributors were harsh but respectful for the most part and not really unfair, and for that I am grateful. I was dead wrong because of my ignorance about the matter. Many lessons learned.

But then along came two respondents who chose to make ad hominem attacks against Elizabeth May and, in particular, her physical attributes. That kind of discursive abuse is profoundly disturbing. It shuts down meaningful discussion and leaves a bitter taste about the site that would include among its contributors people with such textual assault weapons – not that I expect Rabble to exercise any sort of censorship nor should they. People should be free to express themselves, and people should likewise be free to react to those expressions. One can write passionately and forcefully but still be respectful. That was pretty clearly not the case with these two respondents, who I'm sure thought they were being merely clever and witty.

I thought briefly of writing the Rabble administration, but I had written to them twice before on other matters and never received a response. So I had little reason to travel that route. Besides, that would have been a little bit like telling the teacher on Johnny. I suppose I could have answered back, challenging them about their abuse, but that would have merely extended an already awkward and fundamentally useless discussion already going nowhere.

There are many intelligent, insightful, and worthy contributors on Rabble, most of whom are civil and respectful in their discourse. I wish them all well. But I simply cannot contribute to a site where I would be looking over my shoulder in fear of another such vitriolic assault and probably, as a result, pulling my punches because of that implicit intimidation. I feel the chill. I have not been to the site since then.

Note: I am not a member of any federal or provincial party. I've said good things about the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens, and I've taken shots at all of them too. I have of course taken multiple whacks at the Harperites over the years, but now that they have some Red Tories from Ontario in the caucus, who may modified the destructive ideology of the far right elements in the party, I might be able to say something good about them too. I'm not holding my breath.

Ethnic Voters Unite: I Was Lost and Now I'm Found

Why don't all of you who seem so upset with the mainline parties take a good look at the Greens?   I simply can't vote for potential power anymore. Every time I have -- whether for the LPC or the NDP, never the Harperites -- I've compromised myself morally on some issue or other. I've found my way to the Greens in this election, and not just because of their clear recognition of the crucial condition in which planet earth finds itself on this Earth Day but also because they respect all Canadians and, unlike the mainline parties, respect the members of their very own party. Real input from the grassroots in the mainline parties is an illusion. A cabal at the top still calls the shots, and, in the case of the Harperites, an autocrat if not an implicit dictator - some would say explicit - controls everything.

Remind yourself of what sort of input the rank and file had the day Iggy was anointed and ascended to the LPC throne. That was the day many rank and file quit the LPC. Remind yourself of how man times, despite some half-decent policies, the NDP actually propped up the Harperites in order to gain a little bit of pathetic power and prestige. Remind yourself that the BQ is selfishly concerned about the welfare of  only one province, not Canada as a whole. And of course  you need no reminder of the endless abuses of the Harperites.

P.S. I am not a member of the Green Party. I just see full moral value in everything they do.

7:36 AM on April 22, 2011

Ethnic’ voters, unite! You have nothing to lose but your temper

Lame Letter from CBC on Debates

Below is the email I and probably everyone who lodged a protest about  Elizabeth May's exclusion from the debates received from the CBC .  It's classic alibiing, pass-the-buck, lame excuse stuff. So much for the people's television network. Not an ounce of courage, just PR spin about how the decision was made as if that were a satisfactory answer.

Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, concerning representation of the Green Party in the upcoming leaders’ debates. Ms. McGuire asked me to reply.

I want to emphasize that the decision about which parties will be included was made by the Broadcast Consortium, a group of Canada’s largest English and French television networks – including CTV, Global, TVA and CBC/Radio Canada. It is the Consortium that organizes leaders’ debates during federal elections. While CBC/Radio Canada is a full participant, the decisions reached by the Consortium are unanimous.

This year, the Consortium has invited the leaders of four major parties to participate in the debates. That decision was made on editorial grounds, including, among other things, representation in the House of Commons. I might point out that the broadcasters are not alone in making that decision. Party leaders’ debates programs are staged in full agreement with the political parties.

From CBC/Radio Canada’s point of view, the Green Party is playing an increasingly significant role in the election and we fully expect that the party and its leader will receive the fair and equitable treatment it merits in our election coverage.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

G. Fortescue

CBC Audience Relations

Suspicious, Unenthusiastic, Wary

http://bit.ly/dQhA9B

Thomas Walkom in an exploratory walk with Mark Holland around the riding of Ajax-Pickering east of Toronto  found "an electorate that remains suspicious of Ignatieff, unenthusiastic about the May 2 federal election, yet wary of Harper." Rick Alexander, the Harperite candidate, had invited him to travel around the riding, but --wait for it, surprise surprise -- the Harper regime vetoed that idea.  Ajax-Pickering, a suburban riding of Tronna,  is quite different from my own rural riding outside Ottawa,  but the flavour of the responses are not radically different  from what's I've encountered.


Here, over the last few days, as I mentioned yesterday, I've seen a slight rise in support for opposition parties reflecting somewhat  a wariness about Harper and the behaviour of the regime in general.  But   I've also seen widespread suspicions about Ignatieff despite a quality local Liberal candidate, an intelligent women with a marvelous political background. And although I'm for anyone but Harper in essence,  I actually share those suspicions to some extent, principally  because he was anointed the leader of the LPC undemocratically by a Liberal cabal -- a sort of laying on of hands --who placed politics before principle with its own members by not allowing them to vote.    What's that  old cliché?  Oh yeah, one should practice what one preaches or one's credibility is undermined.  This is also a party hard to support, in my mind, for its swift co-operative support for both the Lybian UN initiative without extensive discussion in Parliament and, of course for  the Afghan war, which has led to so many deaths.  Their tempered support for the Tar Sands is equally disturbing, and the absence of a strong privileging position on the environment and,  in particular, on their failure to recognize the urgency for CO2 reductions take them off the table as an option for me.


I've also seen the lack of enthusiasm for another federal election from many of my neighbours,too, one or two of whom are angry at Jack Layton for not compromising with Harper on the budget.  Yeah, right:  let's chastise the opposition for placing principle  before political expediency, though one could argue that there is a political subtext for all three opposition parties in their defeat of the Harper government on a nonconfidence vote of contempt of parliament, a historical decision no one seems to be discussing at all in the campaign. Go figure: the very reason for having an election is merely an excuse, an occasion, an alibi to get out there and campaign on other issues that might win the electorate over.   Even so, my answer:  we may not have wanted an election, but we sure as hell need one.


What I haven't seen is an ounce of movement away from Harper's base. Any gains for the opposition have come from the undecided.  Although that opposition is active here, it is small compared to the Harperite base.  The riding remains hopelessly a small and big C riding, characteristic of so many rural ridings in Eastern Ontario,  filled with apathetic, indifferent potential voters who have, through that political failing, in effect allowed the active base of the Harperites to succeed. The challenge here is not unlike the challenge across Canada: How do we get people, young and old, energized and politically active?  As Elizabeth May has said, "The problem in Canada is not vote splitting, it is vote abandoning."

Elizabeth May Argues for Inclusion

Elizabeth May on Canadian Press Yahoo Video eloquently and rationally arguing why she should indeed be in the federal debate. With each passing day, Big TV looks more and more ridiculous. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, as should Chantel Hebert after her remarks on The National last night. It's a frosty day in hell when Andrew Coyne of McLeans sounds more reasonable than a reporter from the Toronto Star. What's happened to Hebert over the past few years? Why has she drifted so far to the right?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/capolitics-22424923/may-calls-debate-exclusion-anti-democratic-24725120.html

A Postscript to Yesterday's Post: More Than One Villlian

According to Evan (let's-beat-this-story-to-death) Solomon's in his interview with Elizabeth May on  CBC's Power and Politics yesterday, all four of the federal parties with seats in the House had to agree to the decision to exclude Elizabeth May in the two televised debates.  If that is  true, then Michael Ignatieff's and Jack Layton's remarks about welcoming May in the debates could be considered, shall we say, a bit hypocritical.  But a spokesman referenced in a story in the Globe and Mail today says the television consortium issued an ultimatum on Wednesday night to the four parties to agree to their terms, arbitrary as they are.  So the charge of hypocrisy may be less weighty unless the parties had already agreed in discussions before Wednesday night to the exclusion.  Very likely.

The point is why does the absence of a seat in the House determine who should be in a federal leaders' debate?  As I've said, the Green Party of Canada is a legally constituted institution with 308 candidates running for seats across the country with a substantial number of supporters.  It is indeed an issue of democracy and inclusiveness.  Why should we fear a wide range of voices on all the issues that concern us?  Debate can lead to enlightenment for both those who participate and those who watch.

After two exclusionary blowups in three years, isn't it about time we take these federal debates out of the hands of big TV and make them truly public?   For all their faults, the Americans have it right on national debates.

Elizabeth May and The Politics of Exclusion

How can a group of five television executives decide to exclude a party running in 308 ridings when they include a party that can never form government as it runs in only one province? How can debates, a critical part of the democratic process, operate in such a high-handed and arbitrary fashion? How can a party with the support of one in 10 Canadians be excluded? And most fundamentally, how can TV executives tell Canadians that a vote for Green candidates is not a real choice? That is in fact what they are doing. Far from facilitating a full and fair discussion in a democracy, they are interfering in democracy by dictating what choices are worth making.   Elizabeth May”, Globe and Mail, March 30, 2011

There is nothing entertaining about Elizabeth May’s exclusion from the federal leaders’ televised debates.  Once again, Canadian main stream media has exercised its habitual politics of exclusion.  Why is such an arbitrary group as the television Consortium allowed to determine who should and should not be involved in the fate of our country?  In what possible way does this gaggle of suits deserve such exclusionary, arbitrary power?  What can they possibly  fear except the possibility  that Harper, as his nasty wont, will threaten to withdraw as he did in 2007? (Just speculating)  Even the Americans, who frequently exercise exclusionary powers in the mainstream media, transcend such concentrated and arbitrary power through their Commission when it comes to national debates.  How embarrassing for Canada once again on the world stage!

The Green Party of Canada is a legally constituted federal party, the Party is running candidates in all 308 ridings, and Elizabeth May (unlike Michael Ignatieff) is a duly elected leader of the party.   If anyone should be excluded, it’s Gilles Duceppe, whose “federal” party is dedicated to the withdrawal of a province from Confederation, and whose party is running candidates in only one province.  But to do so would be every bit as exclusionary and undemocratic as excluding Elizabeth May.

Where’s the petition?   I want to sign up now.