Where can I find new vote tallies for convention resolutions?
Where can I find the final vote tallies on resolutions (if there was more voting at the convention) Wouldn't mind seeing if some of the resolutions passed or not.
Thanks,
Matt Casselman
Leeds-Grenville
- Matt Casselman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Erich Jacoby-Hawkins |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Trey Capnerhurst |
- John Grogan |
- Rick Mitchell |
- 1 of 2220
- ››
Comments
Can anyone help us find new policy resolutions?
Can anyone point Matt and me in the right direction to find out this information? The Convention was held almost two weeks ago, but I can't seem to locate any information regarding which policy Resolutions were passed, amended and passed, or failed.
"Sudbury" Steve May
"Sudbury" Steve May
I agree, this should be available soon
Dear Matt and Steve,
I agree, that information should become available soon. It's important for members not present at the convention to have access to this information. I was at all the plenary sessions and took my own notes on what resolutions were passed (partly so I could remember later how I actually voted, you start to forget after about 50 votes or so...). I could share those notes but it might make more sense to wait until the official version is released.
Hopefully the people who are working on this will respond soon. I know it's probably a lot of work to put together. If anyone else could comment on the process for publishing adopted policy post-convention that would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information."
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information." These views are my own and do not represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
minutes are in members' zone
The minutes are available in the members' zone of the web site. 61 pages. Have fun! Approved policy will be up shortly.
let's depopulate
Many GPC members should now be embarassed about the party's advocacy, following passage of a certain resolution, for decline in national & world population.
The resolution, G08-p94, even as amended at http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/10100, is of little effective meaning, except maybe as some kind of palliative to anti-populationist fixators, in reliance on "earth's human carrying capacity", a generally meaningless term (see eg the ultimate local issue), as well as in its tangle of "having regard to" & "as indicated" &c.
The explicit amended recognition "that the high level of per capita resource consumption in developed countries makes the impact of their populations much more serious" is meant as a sop to some critics?
So now this party wishes to "reduce human population within a reasonable time" -- that delightful term, 'reasonable', helps neither to soothe critics nor assist proponents. What it does do is set GPC up for just ridicule, best uncomprehending intentions notwithstanding. What it also contributes to is rhetorical preparation for some very dark proceedings. What a delight to share political space with such like!
Means of policy development & adoption is due for major overhaul. See my comparisons with UFA & their eventual unwieldy resolution mass, & demise.
good interview
Here & here I referred to the fine book of someone interviewed here, on Australian national radio:
"The Struggle to Control World Population"
"A conversation with historian Matthew Connelly, who has written the first global history of the population control movement. It is a movement, he says, that has sought to remake humanity with seemingly good intentions but succeeded in causing untold suffering, through unpleasant policies that have not worked."
Depopulation: a policy worthwhile cancelling
I'm glad you caught this early on. I was in Pictou but unaware of the discussion or proposed resolution. I only realized about a month ago that we are now on the record as advocating world population control. I'm not aware of any gratitude from the rest of the world.
Hear hear when you say "What it does do is set GPC up for just ridicule, best uncomprehending intentions notwithstanding." Sadly, the word tragic comes to mind along with ridicule; population declines throughout history have usually been the result of war, famine and disease.
It would be worthwhile to propose another resolution in sober hindsight to rescind this one.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
policy development
I raised a threatening stink privately and publicly among Greens about this packet of resolutions, which unexpectedly seem to have been boiled down to that single "compromise" one, I believe because of the effort of a single individual who travelled cross-country to make it so for his own resolution, which was to have been superceded by a tamer if still objectionable one put forward by a shadow cabineter, but somehow the current one passed.
The most important thing to come out of this should be the lesson about urgent need for reform of policy development, something I've also harped on regularly enough. Apparently something is being done, but I don't know what. In my opinion, a total revision of method is in order, with proposal, discussion & adoption an ongoing affair, with much greater central control, with frequent reference to membership for ultimately saying yea or nay. The latter, in my view, should be a way to "enforce" envigouration of EDAs, where periodically one has to check in with one's EDA to cast a ballot and hopefully discuss, preferably in person. There should also be established a conference delegation method. Also even a small stipend could be given to more capable preparers of policy pieces, it is far too complex for the current way to prevail any longer, however adequate and praiseworthy it might have been in the past in building up the party.
Not only the demise of United Farmers of Alberta party was I reminded of, as I say above. Maybe a more salient example, our party seems a mix of what was in Australia with their Greens and Australia Democrats parties, the two overlapping in policy, the latter adopting policy much as GPC does, meeting its recent demise (and are now "rebuilding").
vox populi
Here's another one to be proud of, "Resolution G08-p42: Israel/Palestine Conflict".
The call for "an international plan for stimulating economic prosperity in both nations" is a ham-handed effort at fairness, reflecting lack of awareness of the relative prosperity in Israel, as well as lack of awareness of past failed economic stimulus to reformation of Palestinian attitudes.
The call "on both sides to immediately stop the killing of civilians" suggests incorrect equivalence of intent, where Israel's enemies actually aim at civilians, which Israel's violent actions are intended to curb. And much reference to "international law" is hopelessly ambiguous in the area.
There is the danger that by fostering peaceful accomodation between factions as per the resolution, those of eventually resurfacing more violent intent would be given a lift.
There is embarassing & recalcitrant degradation of language referring to a "siege". Further, aid is provided and was even during the recent escalation.
The only possible point of distinctive worth in the inept resolution is the call for active support for "the efforts of civil society groups".
Overall another sop to another faction within GPC that has already caused some embarassment, also indicative of an unsteady hand overall in foreign affairs, which should just be avoided altogether without improvement.
(Should GPC maybe call for legalization of cannabis in the Palestinian territories (eh, John?), and how about calling for Israelis to curb population growth, or the reverse, or something like that...As said elsewhere, it's fun to be under a populist tent.)
Economic Decline and World Depopulation!
Wow! read some of these policies from a certain angle and it looks like the idea is to halt all international trade, reduce industrial output entirely, move to subsistence(sustainable) living only and of course this would help to depopulate the planet because everyone who lives in a city now would no longer be able to eat and therefore would die saving the world a whole lot of.......Good Grief People!
If that's the idea, what are we trying to save the planet for, for the planets sake or for peoples sake. I got news for you, the planet is not really at risk, we are and the other lifeforms we share the planet with, if we continue on the path we are on, the planet will eventually become unlivable for humans and many other high order organisms, but the planet will go on, a few million years and and it will either be back to a lush green world free from "sentient" beings or it will be a barren rock like so many others, the universe will not care. If on the other hand we want to save it for our own sakes then it kind of makes sense that we do what it takes to get some greens elected and start making the real change that will matter and get us on the road to survival, trust me if we don't succeed in making real change the planet will take care of the depopulation for us. And if you are truly concerned about the population level on the planet I will tell you that almost every modern 1st world nation has limited it's own population by only having 1 or 2 children, it is a natural by product of higher education and affluence, so perhaps the answer to population control goes hand in hand with giving a hand up to the poorer nations of the world and over-population will sort itself out.
Trust me if we don't weed out this kind of scary policy idea, we will either be a laughing stock, or if we do start to become a threat to the Liberals or Conservatives, they will make this kind of thing the center piece of a national smear campaign, right now we are a nuisance, but if that changes and we still have this kind of stuff lurking in our closet, we are doomed.
from a certain angle
"read some of these policies from a certain angle"...
Be sure Cons. would read from that obtuse angle, and others would with more discretion from an acuter one, both potentially politically costly. The art of interpreting, and interpreting away, comes to the fore here for Greens. It's as I've repeatedly noted, aren't populist parties fun? But part of the just attaction to green politics has been its participatory strain, and it is essential to incorporate this, it just demands constant vigilance, under the circumstances by a strengthened central hand, over which the rank and file nonetheless must have a final veto option. The genuine concern about population pressures is something to be taken seriously, but not made of what is being made of it. It has been repeatedly pointed out that "giving a hand up to the poorer nations", as Ron puts it, is a viable way to ease population pressure. But even that is a questionable tack, as it ties good causes in no need of support by a questionable one. Also, figures & logic defeat any too simplistic green preference to reference to population reduction. I believe it was in a recent New Scientist article I saw international figures showing a limit to the downturn nationally in children per female with progress in certain fields, an uptick of underterminable height developing, perhaps to level off at 2.1 or something close to sufficient replacement numbers. And note well that in some cultures of livelihood exhibiting "growth" in ways Greens would not decry, in those contexts more children not less is both the norm & necessary. That is not to mention the extremely delicate topic of cultural patricularity, where one must shy away from imperially speaking outside one's more local context. Let me requote from Stephen Bocking (posted as, "the ultimate local issue", at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/1575/2009-02-12/global-population-speak-o... ): "Two lessons are most evident from the rise and decline of the population bomb. The first is about the limits to viewing the environment as a matter of numbers. Global figures capture little of the reality of population, and metaphors of bombs (or ecofootprints, for that matter) obscure more than they enlighten. The second is the recognition of population as the ultimate local issue." But it is not right to say as Ron does, "this kind of stuff lurking in our closet" -- all of it is expression of genuine concern mostly only Greens have been attentive and brave enough to put forward for political consideration. This is not a time to pander if the threats are as serious as Ron seems to grasp. It is a time to increase understanding, via lots of research and discussion, and continually developing a capable political means of expression.
World population right-sizing
World population right-sizing can only be achieved if everyone is willing. As soon as you have one nation that is unwilling, you run into the possibility that they effectively can try to overrun the rest of the planet. The population of the planet should be between 0.5B and 2B depending on who you talk with.
There is no marginal increase in economic or technological progress achieved by populating beyond this point because too many people start to compete with what could be virtually free resources (water, arable land, semi-precious and precious industrial metals, etc.)
Anyway, if the world got together and decided to achieve as few as 2 billion people, but China, India, Indonesia, or the US, or whomever decided not to participate, then the goals would not be achievable. And the world would become very dangerously imbalanced if one nation had 50% or more of the world's population. With two large nations not participating, the goal is completely unachievable.
When you can convince the religious people of the world who think it's their God given right to have 8+ children despite the abject poverty surrounding them, (and I mean it in the sense that a person should look around and say, "2.1 children is more than I can afford") then we can achieve right-sizing of our population. But since that's not achievable, it's a very silly policy platform item to carry with us.