Comments on: My nomination speech in Saanich-Gulf Islands

By: Stuart Hertzog

Stuart Hertzog — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:24:19 +0000

Thanks, Oemissions. I’m glad somebody understands why I stood against Ms May. The cult of leadership is left over from the time of tribalism and kingship. It allows élites to retain power by elevating their leader to an almost mystical status. It’s used by corporate executives to justify their obscenely inflated salaries and stock options. It also reeks of militarism. I believe it is fundamentally undemocratic — no wonder the corporate media focuses on party leaders to the exclusion of almost everything else!

By: Sir

Sir — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:38:24 +0000

Looks like Mary is shilling for Elizabeth.

Elizabeth’s brother, Geoffrey often does the same on the G&M comment boards. Occasionally, providing questionable arguments. He was “outed” on this article regarding the nomination results. About the fourth or fifth page of the comments.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/may-wins-green-party-nomination-in-bc-riding/article1294469/

By: Oemissions

Oemissions — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:08:38 +0000

I commend you for running. Why not?
It was a wakeup message to the Greens and many others concerned about Canadian politics.
Elizabeth is great but let’s not consider her infallible or create an idol or cult.

By: Stuart Hertzog

Stuart Hertzog — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:06:54 +0000

Thanks for the information, Mary. So now we know that Ms May planned to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands long before she ‘officially’ announced her intention, and that her coy public protestations that she hadn’t yet decided to run were simply a deception to keep the interest of the media and motivate members to plead with her to come here. People will certainly be truth-testing any future public statements Ms May may make.

And Mary, I understand that the decision on where she was to run wasn’t actually made by the Federal Council, which were simply informed about it after it was made. Nothing appears in Council minutes about it because no motion was ever made. This contradicts Ms May’s statements that this was a decision of Council. Again, she fails a ‘truthiness’ test.

As for accepting my defeat “like a man and move on,” well, I’m male and I accept the defeat, which went just about how I figured it, a little better in fact, and I’m moving on to complete what I started (most men try to do that, Mary) and send to Elections Canada the documentation I have about the Green Party hierarchy’s despicable treatment of my candidacy.

As for your derogatory epithets describing me, I must remind you that ad hominem arguments are not permitted on this site, and if you persist any future comments containing any will be blocked. You are welcome to continue to address issues, however. Finally, thank you for reporting that my quiet, friendly, cheerful public persona remains intact.

By: mary griffin

mary griffin — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:29:36 +0000

My understanding is that Elizabeth “moved” to Sidney around August 1st staying with a friend on 3rd Street while she house hunted. She rented the house beginning in september at the corner of Amelia nd restahaven in Sidney. So she had been a resident of the riding for over a month and a half before the nomination meeting. her residency credentials were checked and verified at the meeting where I assume you had your own representaives engaged in the check in process. What is your problem with this procedure?
As to the voters list the EDA membership chair confirms in writing that you received the riding membership list three days before it was given to Elizabeth. My understanding is that you chose to e-mail riding members on several occassions in support of your candidacy while Elizabeth chose instead to personally phone each and every member. What, pray tell, is unfair or undemocratic in this?. Really,Stuart, I just don’t get your point. You chose to oppose Elizabeth May in an attempt to defy the Green Party’s priority decision–made by its grass roots, democratically elected Federal Council– that electing Elizabeth May to Parliament was the priority in the next election. The grass roots membership confirmed their support for this policy by coming to the nominating meeting and voting for Elizabeth as their chosen candidate. You lost–badly. My guess is that you know precisely how many votes you didn’t get since you had your own scrutineer present at the vote count but you are too embarassed to admit your total failure on this blog by pretending that you don’t know the results when obviously you do. Now you plan more mischief and, I suspect an attempt at some more of that tantalizing publicity– by pursuing your complaints to Elections Canada. Why can’t you accept your defeat like a man and move on??? Is your hope now to try and smear Elizabeth and the Green party’s campaign in your attempt to stop her winning a seat in open defiance of the Party’s democratically decided goal?. What a sad and pathetic character you are. Give your head a shake,Stuart. Listen to the posts above of other grass roots members and let it go. you are making yourself appear very silly and very spiteful when folks whove known you for ages tell me that you are neither.

By: "Sudbury" Steve May

"Sudbury" Steve May — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:59:27 +0000

Is she a parachute candidate? Yes. Did she pack her parachute appropriately before making the jump? It appears that she did. The Party’s rules, like those of the other major parties in this country, permit parachute candidates. Which I believe is a good thing, given that we still don’t have EDA’s in all of our ridings, and often candidates from outside of riding boundaries need to be located. Do I think this is the best approach? Usually, no, I don’t; I’d much prefer we have candidates from the communities in which they are running. But sometimes, that’s not possible. And sometimes, such as the situation here with Elizabeth, it may not even be desirable for the good of the Party. And I believe that Elizabeth’s decision to run in SGI, no matter when she made her mind up about it, was a decision which was for the good of the Party, and I’m also certain it was not an easy decision for her to make.

I realize others will disagree with me on this, and suggest that parachute candidates need to be avoided at all costs, for the sake of grassroots credibility. I can’t agree, because I believe that the future of our Party is predicated on electing MP’s (something I know that others don’t agree with me on either).

As per Dave Bagler’s recent blogpost, I’m very happy to hear that Elizabeth May has started going out to important local meetings, such as the one organized by a Conservative MP about a marina issue. I have no doubt that Elizabeth will totally immerse herself in making Sidney her new home, likely moreso than I have tried making my Sudbury my own new home, even though I’ve been living here now for almost 9 years.

By: Sebastian Ronin

Sebastian Ronin — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:26:03 +0000

Steve, with all due respect, them’s a lot of words to address a simple issue. Is Liz May a parachute candidate in SGI or not?

By: "Sudbury" Steve May

"Sudbury" Steve May — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:11:57 +0000

Well, I am going to follow John’s advice and stand down, after making a few last comments here. With regards to “residency”, while I understand what Stuart is saying, I think that his argument has more to do with “home” than “residency”. Yes, society might benefit from having a little less of a rootless existence, but currently this is the reality for many. Given this reality, then, we need to have rules and laws which provide a basic level of guidance. For example, university students who attend out-of-town schools should be allowed to cast their votes in a federal election in the community which they are currently residing. I don’t think many Greens would take issue with that.

If Elizabeth May was moving across the country and temporarily living somewhere in SGI with an uncertain nomination contest outcome in her future (uncertain because it had not yet occurred), and having expressed that she was looking for a house, it would appear to me that she was meeting the “residency” test. Heck, I’ve done this myself when I moved to Sudbury: I was paying rent on an apartment in Toronto in which I was not living, and paying rent on an apartment in Sudbury where I was temporarily residing while I was looking for a house to purchase. If someone had asked me what my residence was (or where I would vote), I would have used the Sudbury apartment address.

My only concern would be if the “residence” was identified as the Beacon Avenue office. I suspect, though, that it wasn’t. More likely she was billeting with somebody, as billeting is a great Green Party practice. Sure, there may be some semantic arguments to make regarding when does a houseguest become a resident, but I’ll take you back to my own experience. Had I been living with a friend in Sudbury when I moved here, looking for a home, I would still have voted in an election using my friend’s address, had I been inhabiting that space for the required period of time.

Whatever her intentions might have been 30 or so more days in advance of the September 19th nomination meeting, I don’t know that they really matter to this discussion. I realize that there was a “guessing game” going on…and didn’t the Party and Elizabeth receive some generally positive media coverage as a result? Yes, maybe she knew what her intentions were going to be prior to publicly declaring, but keep in mind her ability to follow through on those intentions might have had to be placed on hold, as she found that she would have to face a nomination contest first.

And as a result, she probably got the ball rolling by finding a temporary place to stay in SGI, which would have made sense if she was house-hunting, and wanting to cast a ballot in her new EDA’s nomination contest, in which she was a contestant. Looks to me like it’s a non-issue, and so I’ll now follow John O.’s advice and stand down.

It’s actually good to know that the process likely played itself out as it was required to do.

By: Stuart Hertzog

Stuart Hertzog — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:59:23 +0000

John, I accept that Elizabeth was overwhelmingly chosen as the candidate in SGI by the members. I didn’t seriously believe that I had anything more than an outside chance at being elected. But there were more than ‘slippery bits’ in this nomination campaign. It was by no means a fair, open, and proper democratic process, which is something that every member has a right to expect from a Green party — do they not?

I believe that the Green Party broke a significant number of rules, both its own and Elections Canada’s, in an effort to block and bury my campaign. But I persisted, because I object to the way the party has been stealthily and progressively diverted from its original intent, which was to provide an alternative, participatory and democratic approach to politics. Things have gotten so bad that the Green Party is now using exactly the same devious and underhanded techniques to control its grassroots EDAs and members and promote its leader, as the other political parties.

I believe that without an open, honest, biocentric and participatory democracy, we will not achieve an of our stated goals of environmental protection, ecological preservation, world peace, and amelioration of global warming. I know that this is a difficult message for people to grasp immediately, especially when faced with the glittering prospect of someone — anyone — becoming the first elected Green MP in Canada.

But without the Green Party adhering to its principles, that victory is going to be hollow indeed. The state of democracy in Canada and in the Green Party are connected. Until you grasp where I’m coming from, John, you will do as other party members have tried to do, which is to try to shut me down. I won’t be silenced, because I believe that the very survival of both our political democracy and life on this planet as we know it, are at stake.

Perhaps Elizabeth deserved to win — but I also deserved to have been treated respectfully and fairly in my nomination campaign. I wasn’t, and that throws a terrible light on the state of democracy in the Green Party, which is part of the reason why I stood against Elizabeth in the first place.

Democracy is ‘down in the weeds,’ John, in the Green Party and in Canada. I’m trying to re-grow it from its grass roots, starting here and now.

By: John Ogilvie

John Ogilvie — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:26:23 +0000

Steve, Stuart, and others – please stand down.

The points are valid (and awfully interesting) but they’re down in the weeds, in terms of significance.

Yes, there were some slippery bits in SGI, as there ahs been elsewhere. But at the end of the day Elizabeth deserved to win, based on what she brought to the riding’s campaign.

In 2010 there will be a mandatory leadership race. Concentrate your efforts there.