Dermod,

I couldn't have said it better myself. As a candidate for Councilor-at-Large in the upcoming Federal Council election I feel compelled to become more involved in the discussions posted in the blogosphere. However, the nature of some of these discussions has turned me away from engaging in such dialogue because it strikes me as nothing short of divisive and degenerating.

As a young Green I feel that this party can become a vital part of our Canadian Political landscape, if we so choose to work TOGETHER. What kind of reputation do we want to portray to the rest of Canada? A party, on the fringes of electing its first MP, ripping itself apart from the inside? Those of us who have followed Canadian politics know very well about the negative ramifications that have accompanied division within the Liberal Party of Canada.

I will not stand by and tolerate the divisive deliberations that run the risk of creating a black hole within the party's membership, morale and overall support.

Some people on the East Coast might say: "Matthew, that's Politics for ya." I will not stand by and watch because, as Carl Pope said, 'politics is not a spectator sport.'

I joined this party because it gave me hope for Canadian Democracy. Not only do we have the opportunity to change the face of Canadian Politics, but Global Politics as well. But we are a party of the Grassroots, so lets act like it.

To all Greens: When the voting for 2010 closes on August 2nd, please vote for those bloggers who are writing about ways to help the party move forward. Not everyone is writing abusive content in their blogs, so take the time and get to know the Candidates (and read the motions) and make choices that speak closely to why you are a member of this Party.

Thank you,

Matthew Chisholm

(Candidate for Councilor-at-Large)

Dermod:

I'm probably one of the worst offenders with this.

I think it is always important to remember when we try to call people on intemperate language, however, that sometimes they are people who have been driven to distraction by the intemperate behaviour of others. As long as I have been a member of this party there have been people who have done the most underhanded, vile, "dirty tricks" in order to subvert majority rule in the GPC. Some of them lose their tempers, but most of them are very good at doing things behind closed doors and often without letting anyone know who decided what.

The latest example of ignoring the constitution vis-a-vis the leadership race, sending out a misleading letter from the leader using the party lists, writing extremely biased "party opinions" to "inform" about the implication of certain resolutions (I doubt if anyone will ever tell the membership who wrote them), are just the latest examples of this sort of vile behaviour.

And it is vile. It is vile because it is a clear attempt to subvert the internal democratic process of a political party that was specifically formed because its membership was upset with "business as usual" in other parties. I doubt if the people who did it were Richard the III's who set out to "make evil their good, and good their evil". Instead, I think it was done by individuals who were so absolutely sure of their view of the world that they knew that "the ends justify the means". As anyone with insight has learned by middle-age, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". And the essence of democracy is the belief that people as individuals are so fallible that no one has a monopoly on truth---so we might as well try to figure things out collectively.

I know why I get angry. It is because I see these attempts to do an end-run around the good-will, good-faith and common sense of the ordinary members. It is an insult to all the members who have the humility to "suck it up" and just do their bit when it comes to knocking on doors, putting out the stacking chairs, ordering the food, phoning up people to make a donation, etc. It is a statement that "you hard-working folks are just too dam stupid to be able to make a good choice, so I'm going to make it for you."

That's why I get angry when I see people "fiddling" with the process. It's why I curse and complain in blogs and discussion boards. I know that its counter-productive. But I'd never trade who I am with the slimey types who always talk with a calm voice and smile on their faces while they are manipulating the process to subvert the decisions of the rank-and-file members.

Bill Hulet

Bill, don’t get me wrong. There are many worthy points to debate regarding the various motions before the party and equally some of the maneuvers behind the scenes. And there should be a vigorous debate.

However, while enjoying the liberties proffered by political prose it’s not a prerequisite that personal shots must be lobbed across the bow.

Regrettably, some of the comments on some sites and ironically enough even the party’s site really don’t help add anything to advancing either POV.

We’re all – moi included – guilty of sometimes allowing our rhetorical flourishes to get the better of our more natural reasoned arguments. :)

It’s just that too much flourish may leave some key players in the party bitterly divided on August 23rd. And that ain’t wise.

Dermod

Well said Dermod, We must all remember that such personal blogs and for that matter much of the commentary on the GPC site is "in the public domain". In grass roots, open and accountable party this is perhaps how it should be but never forget that those that our candidates will be competing against in the next election will also be watching and gathering information to spin to the partys and individuals detriment. Let us indeed keep the debate civil!

Yes Dermod, you are right. It is silly, and futile to sling mud at one another, when there are substantive, even fundamental issues on the table. It was the one reason why I quit the Green Party after working on EMays leadership team in 2006. The rhetoric went way over the top, and reconciliation was never on the table when the dust settled. And yet, here I am slinging mud, sigh. mea culpa.

I really wonder though, where is your preferred Leadership contender standing on the Review question? No public utterances whatsoever? Fence sitting has it's advantages of course. You do not make any enemies that way, but sometimes you simply need to take a position. If somebody, anybody wants to be the Leader of any Party one day, then it can be assumed that they actually had an opinion on something so basic as Reviews vs. Contests. One day, presumably, the question will be asked directly. Where were you when...?

Matt Day