The L Word
Last night the JLC(Q) had their meeting discussing our future direction in the upcoming leadership race. As the most powerful youth wing in the country, our 5 000 members are a vibrant force within the party, still healing from the old leadership wars as well as the Gomery Commission. The Young Liberals are the only ones with significant recruiting power and no wounds to tend to.
So here is our position: we are sticking together.
Leaderships divide brother and sister, father and son, sometimes even husband and wife. Nobody is more vulnerable than young people. We have a President, Brigitte Legault, who has committed to have the entire exec interview each candidate. This way, we can make sure that all of us pick the candidate whose values best match those of the JLCQ.
The position taken by Brigitte is the right one, as it allows for an open process where those who do not win out are satisfied that they went through the motions and considered the right candidate.
As VP Policy of the JLCQ, I can give you some insight that absolutely no executive would ever possibly support.
First off, our leadership candidate would HAVE TO support the rights of same sex couples to get married civilly. To all those who have opposed this in the past, they will have to be accountable.
Secondly, our leadership candidate MUST be in favour of a woman’s right to choose. This is one of the most protected values amongst us liberals. We ran attack ads against candidates who opposed such rights. Why would we ever support a candidate to lead our party who had a different position?
Thirdly, our leadership candidate must be an ARDENT defender of the Kyoto Protocol. No province loves Kyoto as much as Quebec does, and we here at the JLC(Q) believe we must support a candidate who will adopt Canada’s action plan in waging a war on global warming. That war we will accept!
Those previous three statements were not directed at any potential candidate in particular. However, to all candidates who wish to garner our support, you will have to answer to all your positions. Let the fun begin!
So here is our position: we are sticking together.
Leaderships divide brother and sister, father and son, sometimes even husband and wife. Nobody is more vulnerable than young people. We have a President, Brigitte Legault, who has committed to have the entire exec interview each candidate. This way, we can make sure that all of us pick the candidate whose values best match those of the JLCQ.
The position taken by Brigitte is the right one, as it allows for an open process where those who do not win out are satisfied that they went through the motions and considered the right candidate.
As VP Policy of the JLCQ, I can give you some insight that absolutely no executive would ever possibly support.
First off, our leadership candidate would HAVE TO support the rights of same sex couples to get married civilly. To all those who have opposed this in the past, they will have to be accountable.
Secondly, our leadership candidate MUST be in favour of a woman’s right to choose. This is one of the most protected values amongst us liberals. We ran attack ads against candidates who opposed such rights. Why would we ever support a candidate to lead our party who had a different position?
Thirdly, our leadership candidate must be an ARDENT defender of the Kyoto Protocol. No province loves Kyoto as much as Quebec does, and we here at the JLC(Q) believe we must support a candidate who will adopt Canada’s action plan in waging a war on global warming. That war we will accept!
Those previous three statements were not directed at any potential candidate in particular. However, to all candidates who wish to garner our support, you will have to answer to all your positions. Let the fun begin!
par / by Anthony à / at 10:03 p.m.
11 Commentaires:
The first two comments would seem to suggest that McKenna would have a difficult time garnering your support. Am I off the mark here?
McKenna was a pro-life. I think that he is starting with a big disadvantage.
Was Belinda supporting Kyoto when she was a conservative M.P. ? It would be an interesting question to ask her (and see if it really matches her voting history)...
Alex,
So, just so I can be sure I understand what you have just proposed, let me recap:
It appears that you are suggesting that anyone wishing to seek the support of the JLQ is discouraged from adopting anything in the way of a nuanced policy position.
So, for instance, it appears that, rather than trying to assess the flaws in Kyoto that have led past governments to support it only in name, while they undercut it in fact, you would prefer to find someone who would continue to uncritically kowtow before the altar of environmental platitude.
Likewise on abortion, a subject on which the country is strongly divided and concerning which there exists no law, you would seem to prefer a litmus test that precludes any sort of nuanced opinion (as on acceptable and/or unacceptable methods, times, etc.)
Abortion is NOT universally freely available in Canada, as anyone who has lived in province that does not fund abortion will tell you. A real discussion surrounding this issue would have to get into the very difficult area of how much one wishes to push the Canada Health Act to force provinces to abide by its rules.
The issue is the same with SSM and the changing roles of parliament and courts. Nuance is what needs to be considered, not obedience to the party's moral line.
The problem with litmus tests is that you eventually get exactly what we saw over Kyoto: you can make a politician agree to anything when they think they have to. Getting them to act on their stated support, well, that's a different kettle of fish.
If you keep pushing litmus tests, you're going to keep pushing for the mouthed support for policies that never get acted upon in real life.
And here I thought that this leadership selection process would be about getting RID of the hypocrisy and platitude-spewing that had crippled the Liberal Party's credibility throughout Canada.
Oh well. I guess that one can only hope that your group is as ineffectual as it appears to be.
Cheers.
Whoops, sorry. That last post should have been directed to Antonio. Sorry for the malcredit.
Litmus tests are necessary. A leader has to have values and stand by their decisions.
If a candidate's actions run counter to our values, explain them to us, very simple.
It is not very complicated, I'm not saying don't run, I am saying money and job offers will not buy our loyalty.
Interviewing the candidates is a good thing to do, but be careful about trying to force everyone into the same boat. There are a lot of good candidates out there, and it's perfectly legitimate for someone on your executive to like one more than the other.
With your plan, you risk alienating people who may like a different candidate.
A better approach would be to interview the candidates and see where they stand on the issue, then publish this and distribute it to your membership. Let them decide who they like but respect disenting opinion. Agree to run the race ethically and not to be too bloodthirsty with your competition.
Otherwise you risk have a few pushy exec members force everyone into supporting a candidate who people may not completely believe in.
The goal CGrit is to show our candidates to everyone and take a decision as an exec. 11 of us are elected and cant be fired even if we split.
The goal is to present an unbiased portrait to the membership
I think it is worth the old college try
Who on earth is against a women's right to choose? In the Liberal Party of Canada, of all political parties? How can you call yourself a Liberal (small or capital "l") and be against that?
I'm afraid that's a non-issue, Antonio, so find another one.
Kyoto is fine, though.
Ask henry Morgentaler who wanted to stop him from performing abortions?
it was frank mckenna
besides, joe volpe is against a womans right to choose as well
you are right though, SHOULD be a non-issue
The tent got a whole lot smaller!
Post a Comment
<< Home