Imagine if your national party told you that your riding had to nominate only one sort of candidate. Stephane Dion wants more women in the Liberal caucus and to get it he's planning on designating ridings that will have to allow only women to contest the nomination.
I tend to agree with Dion but this idea is unacceptable. He's obviously not going to choose his own bloody riding for this special treatment so what makes him think this draconian mandate should apply to any other?
It's a lazy idea and utterly ill-conceived. If you want more women MPs, do the work to recruit the sort of women who can win nominations all on their own.
How can anyone claim to truly represent the voters of their riding when the voters' choice was shackled this way? If anything, it makes the women who would be chosen second-class MPs.
Sorry Stephane, go back to the drawing board and come up with some alternative, one that doesn't trample on core democratic principle.
16 comments:
so much for democracy ....
that type of thinking, reinstates
the 'token women status mp'; and an insult.
Male candidates have said this is fairer from the outset than to let thm campaign and then be told in 4th stage nomination ridings that its being appointed. And ridings have been appointed since the being of time so crying foul now to have more women candidates is realy disingenuous.
Best quote of the dday,"seems like 80% of the ridings are reserved for men now"
And I'll add. We've had affirmative action for men for long enough. It's time to get rid of it.
Although I understand why one would be angered by this idea, unfortunately the democratic process is not completely active in a riding association. The process of winning a nomination isn't always about being the best candidate, it's about who can sign up the most number of unconcerned members, who will simply vote for an individual because you tell them to. I am not necessarily defending the tactic proposed, but there are a number of ridings where incredibly smart and talented women run for the nomination and are trumped by so-called better organizers, when in fact the only organization tactic this person uses is signing up fake party members. Unfortunately this process affects all candidates, meaning that sometimes the best candidate doesn't win, male or female (although this is disproportionately affecting females) What would be even worse for Dion would be to do nothing about this and not meet his target, which would look incredibly bad. Furthermore, it's not always a matter of running women candidates, it is a matter of running them in winnable riding, where the nomination situation as outlined about tends to be magnified.
What's the big deal?
Like thats not happening now?
Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves...
I'm sorry but I can't buy your logic. I do want Dion to redress this balance problem but not this way. There's nothing insulting in pointing out the obvious - a woman who wins her candidacy in a nomination process in which her gender is a defining qualification is a person chosen, in no small part, because of gender, a "special" MP. Is that less offensive?
There must be better ways. Cleaning up the "faux" membership scam is a problem that needs addressing but that is outside this gender question.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to give women better funding advantages or party-assisted promotion, something effective but something other than closing a riding's nomination process to half of its potential members. That's nonsense and does women no service.
The bottom line is that restricting someone from running in g a riding based on gender, race or anything is discrimination. Just because it's a admirable goal to have more female MP's doesn't make it right to throw democracy out the window.
If they really want to make this a fair system, the election laws would be changed so that all candidates ran as independents with no party affiliation whatsoever. People in their riding would judge them on their ideas and reputation in the community. After being elected, they would be free to join a political party if they wanted to form a voting block. The party system we have right now is killing democracy as it puts party interests in front of the people.
I tend to think this is well-intentioned, but a bit insulting towards women, really. Women can compete against men and win - Martha Hall Findlay and Cheri DiNovo, Florence MacDonald, and Elizabeth Dole are as terrific as anyone you'll find, and some of my favourite politicians. They didn't/don't need special handholding.
This is a much bigger “problem” issue then most people think.
Riding associations are becoming divided from their national counterparts and campaign committee members are becoming divided with each other.
Sooner or later, something is going to give and it will result in the worst possible outcome
The Liberal Party of Canada will head into the next election with less volunteers and a divided and angry grassroots (Just like the last election, and we know how that turned out)
Where do the hermaphrodites, eunuchs and transgendered fit into this plan. Dion is marginalizing some minority Canadians altoghether.
Pat,
Not only are those groups marginalized, what about just plain old homosexuals? Dion must mandate 10% of ridings be assigned to practicing gays and lesbians immediately!
In order to reach the targets, Dion will need to make sure that some ridings have women represent them. If the choice is this or appointing them outright, then this at least gives a choice to which women will represent them.
It's not perfect, and hopefully we will find a way that will encourage women to run without requiring them to be put into token positions, but that's still far off.
look anyone who objects to what I would in fact cale a fairer nomination process that doesn't descriminate on the basis of gender as we obviously do now given the numbers and number dont lie, they had better have put in writing somewher ethat they oppsed every appointment of every white man since they became Liberals, because its been going on for a long time just not for women.
Whois a star? Who do we need? Do we need another hockey player or an astronaut because nobody would complain when they are appointed as long as they are white men right? All hell would break lose if it were Roberta Bondar instaed of MArc Garrneau because she's a women??????
Really prove to me you opposed Marc Garneau's nomination before you think you are being anything other than disingenuous to oppose the nomination of "star" female candidates a) because the current process discriminates against women and b) because with 11% females in the COnservative caucus it could be a wedge issue for us.
The process isn't fair now and the best person doesn't necessarily win. Anyone who thinks it is, either hasn't been invoved in a nomination or isn't telling the truth.
Are you all the same people who think Justin Trudeau should just be given a riding because of his sire? He's an unqualified school teacher for god's sake.
Oh but right he's a white male of priviledge so he needs more help than lets say someone from a marginalized group that is under-represented in our so called democratic system because well?????? Right!
And how many men in the Liberal caucus were appointed or had, shall we say, less than open nominations????
Liberals decided this is what we wanted at convention. Democratically. If you didn't want it then you should have voted for lets say, Joe Volpe, who was one of the only leadership candidates who wasn't advocating it.
By the way, after winnning her nomination Martha was asked to step aside for a non-nominated Belinda, that was so fair and open.
Audacious isn't even a member of the Liberal PArty as far she has stated. So why she is posting on internal Liberal decisions that were made democratically at convention and then not posting the responses of Liberal women who did go to conventnion is a bit puzzling.
This is plainly an issue that could prove divisive to the party. Because it can divide people of goodwill on both sides of the argument, Stephane Dion needs to have an open discussion or debate on the subject. Who knows, maybe others he hasn't consulted might have useful suggestions to put forward. Also, Dion needs to explain this very carefully, to review what options he considered and rejected in coming to this position. He needs to show that this initiative is a last resort, the only good option to resolving this problem. We already have one party subject to strongman rule, we don't need another.
My last point. With a looming election and the Libs and Cons virtually tied, this hardly seems the time for social engineering. Dion had better be sure this will win votes - and seats. He's also going to need good demographics to select ridings where this is least likely to backfire. We can't afford to lose the next election over this.
If this is a "wedge issue", let's make sure it's one that works for us.
I think what we are seeing is the Dion-Implosion starting.
Already the Liberal Party has dropped to seven percent behind the Tories.
That during a time the environment has been the main issue in the House of Commons.
If Dion can't climb up the polls during that issue, can you imagine what will happen during the election?
Ouch!
Post a Comment